User:Dweller/Demi Moore

Accepting mediation
Please sign here if you accept mediation:
 * Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taylornate (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other editors you think I ought to invite here? If so, please place their name below with no comment. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User:GRuban
 * User:Dr.K.
 * User:Luciferwildcat
 * User:Coaster92
 * User:Youreallycan
 * User:Yworo
 * User:AndyTheGrump
 * User:Nymf


 * User:Mythpage88


 * User:Baseball Bugs


 * User:Fat%26Happy


 * User:The_Cunctator

Introduction
Thank you all for joining and bearing with me.

We need to keep the heat out of this if we're to have any chance of success. Please can we therefore all abide by the following rules:


 * 1) All discussion even remotely regarding the dispute goes on this page. Feel free to edit about Demi Moore, if it's clearly not related to this dispute. However, please avoid antagonising/arguing with/reverting other parties, even in matters unrelated to the dispute.
 * 2) Please do everything you can to keep a calm atmosphere on this page. State your comments and concerns briefly. Walls of text make for difficult progress. Edit when you're cool.
 * 3) We're not in a rush. Rushing will increase chances of heat and failure.
 * 4) Any concerns about this process, please post to the talk page. Nothing else should go there, thanks. Please only comment on the talk page in sections you have created yourself.

Summary of dispute
I believe that there are two main points to discuss:


 * 1) Demi Moore's first name
 * 2) Editor behaviours at the article and its talk page

Please sign below if you agree with that summary. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you disagree, and think there are more points, please state the additional points as briefly as you can, without naming other editors or making accusations. Please at this stage do not debate additional points suggested by other editors.
 * If you disagree, and think one of the points I've listed above is not relevant, please explain why as briefly as you can, without naming other editors or making accusations. Please at this stage do not debate suggestions for removal made by other editors.

--Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Not specifically about Moore's first name, since we're not detectives doing OR. Topic is whether Moore's name has been reported two ways in major WP:RS publications for decades.
 * 2) Agree.

--Taylornate (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

--Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor behaviours
This is mediation, and I see my role as someone looking to help the parties work together.

I hope it's not too disappointing if I say that a grisly post-mortem of he-said-but-he-said actually works against what I need to do. More important, if we're going to be successful, is that everyone works together well moving forward. I'd really like to start relaxing some of the stringencies I've placed here, but I'm worried that incivility, hostile editing and other bad behaviours will break out again.

Please stick to the following rules on this page:
 * 1) Debate others' arguments, but don't comment about them as a person
 * 2) Keep comments as short as can be - a good way to ensure you're only writing constructive things
 * 3) If you're disagreeing with someone, say so and then quickly explain why. That's all.
 * 4) Apologising is not a sign of weakness.

If we really need to do a post-mortem, let's do so at the conclusion of the debate?

Moore's name
Please will each of you in the relevant subsection below, in your own words explain what you think you're arguing about, ie present both sides of the equation as neutrally as possible. To give an example from another theoretical discussion, you might write Is Dweller going to succeed?, rather than stating your view (Dweller couldn't possibly succeed or Dweller will definitely succeed)

Please bear the advice above. Please, for the moment, edit only in your own area. If you want to go with another's viewpoint, please copy and paste it, in case it changes later.

Stuart.Jamieson's view
In the past 20 years, Demi Moore's birth-name has been reported in some secondary sources as as "Demetria"; in both recent Interviews and in statements made by her Twitter account this has been corrected - giving her birthname as "Demi" (also used by other secondary sources over the past 30 years). Tenebrae has presented an argument that because some of the sources (specifically The new York times, and Time Inc) have a lot of people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing then they must be reliable when they present the fact that Demi Moore's birth-name is "Demetria" and that if they are reliably reporting this fact then we should make neutral representation of both what the sources say and what Demi has said about herself. Taylornate has presented the counterargument that Ms. Moore's personal statements are not unduly self serving and that we omit the minority claim that her birth-name is "Demetria"  because including it (as we have in the past) unduly legitimises it. I stand currently undecided between these two arguments, however I have grave concerns about the use of sources and relevant guidelines and policy in the inclusion argument particularly in relation to Reliability of sources, Relevance of this note to the biography of Demi Moore, whether making any observation of the sources let alone comparison of the sources (without citing a source that makes that same observation/comparison) is an Original Research, and also whether the relative weight of the sources makes for a potential NNPOV even though the intent is to remain neutral. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae's view
Stuart does an excellent job of encapsulating my stance. I did lose track of what was being said later in the paragraph, but, certainly, a subject's full name is inherently relevant to any biography. Now, I believe "Demetria" to be true: Among many other reasons, The New York Times and Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly (to name just three of many that state "Demetria") run corrections over things as small as misspelling 2-L Phillip as 1-L Philip. That any one of them wouldn't run a correction over a high-profile error of a famous person's name is exceedingly slim; that not a single one of these three would run a correction is virtually impossible. However, I am not in any way advocating "Demetria" exclusively since, clearly, highly responsible, major publications have given her name as one or the other since the 1990s or earlier (for common newsroom reasons I could offer). As accurately stated, I believe "we should make neutral representation of both what the sources say and what Demi has said about herself."

RE Taylornate's point that a person knows their own name: Not necessarily &mdash; few of us see our own birth certificates and we may not know precisely what name is given in it. Secondly, no responsible journalist would take a single source's word when it's at odds with facts reported over the course of decades; that's why we seek independent confirmation, or state that this is what the person is saying and not something we've independently confirmed. An encyclopedia should not have lower standards than journalism. -- --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Taylornate's view
Some sources have said Moore was born Demi, others say Demetria. Moore has explicitly stated Demi is correct. Tenebrae says we should give credence to both sides, albeit in a foot note. I disagree on grounds of common sense. I think Moore should know what her own name is and can't think of any motivation for her to lie. Stuart.Jamieson is undecided.--Taylornate (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question from Dweller: Do you think there is a form of words that you could agree to (or might propose) that would include both opinions? --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not likely, but I'm comfortable with the idea of being ruled against. I joined this disagreement by leaving a comment in an RfC.  I don't really have an emotional stake in this and I was content to leave my comment and move on.  I started to join in when it looked like my view was not being considered just because I was not (hyper)actively defending it.  I felt the "winner" was going to be the loudest instead of the most sensible, an idea I find distasteful.  If my view is incorrect that's fine, I'd just rather not compromise for the sake of appeasement.  I'm more concerned with the process than the outcome.--Taylornate (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My proposed process here was for the three of you between you, with minor help from me in facilitation, to come up with a form of wording you could all agree to. If you're unconvinced that could work, and we go by the "include both" route, do you think you could you help by being a friendly critic of attempts at a solution worked on by the other two parties (and any others that may join)? --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to as long as it does not become too time consuming. If we do decide to include both sides, some version from the article talk page would probably be best place to start.--Taylornate (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, thank you. Watch this space. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Drafting new text
Thank you all for some excellent co-operation so far.

I think we've reached a state where we can get ito the meat of the problem: finding a simple, NPOV, properly sourced few sentences that we can all live with. I'm going to review the article talk and find a version to use as a starting point. I'm also going to give a little thought as to how best to manage the process to continue to avoid heat, just at the point where heat could most easily reappear.

Taylornate has kindly agreed to be a 'friendly critic' of our efforts.

I'll be back here in the next day or two with a starting point and proposed methodology. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You've been a wonder, and I'm quite certain each of the editors in this process is very grateful for the time and effort you're expending, and voluntarily. Thank you very much. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dweller, While as Tenebrae says I am grateful for your time and effort, I still have doubts that any wording is needed and if it doesn't upset the process too much - I'd like to establish that policy and the sources actually support making any statement or whether we are just doing so ignoring the rules to try and achieve a consensus. Reading through RFC again, I see that many if not all of the editors who agreed to compromise raised concerns previously that were not answered and that they moved to concede their positions because of the vocality of other points of view. In this mediated discussion where vocality should not be an issue then should we still be working from the disputed position of the RFC or can we start from scratch and establish by looking at the sources and our policy what if anything at all (including stating a birth name) should be said and once that's done, do as your suggesting here and in the same manner establish how it should be said.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you're trying to change the RfC in midstream, if I'm reading that rambling and ungrammatical post correctly. The RfC is and always was about how to balance the two names, NOT to pick one name over the other. I could say more, but I'm trying to respect Dweller's request that we not be contentious.


 * Let us please wait for Dweller's next comment after he reads through the existing discussion, and refrain from further discussion here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, if you wished to refrain from further discussion then you should not have commented - my request was to Dweller I did not expect further comment from you and certainly not another personal attack from you aimed at my grammar. Dweller can consider my request as he sees fit and respond when it best suits him. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, just because you decided to try to frame the RfC discussion a certain way does not give you authority to dictate anything about the outcome. The possibilities Stuart.Jamieson has mentioned here have been on the table from the beginning.  I also believe your comment about Stuart.Jamieson's writing style to be in conflict with your statement about respecting Dweller's request to not be contentious.--Taylornate (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I hear your concerns (all of you). I'll be back in a day or two with some thoughts, having read through the RfC. One of my roles will be to try to ensure that the voices of the RfC are reflected in the final draft. In the meantime, please try to criticise only the ideas or work of others, not their personal traits. We all need to ensure that everything we write on this page is as constructive as possible. Also, please be sparing in use of caps, italics and bold (preferably, don't use them) as in a dispute environment, they can come across as shouty or patronising, rather than the simple emphasis you probably intend. --Dweller (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, so there is no misunderstanding: I did not in any way take a gratuitous swipe at Stuart.Jamieson, as he and Taylormate seem to be claiming. My point, which I had sincerely thought I had made clear, is that it was impossible for me to clearly understand what Stuart was trying to say. Perhaps I should have phrased it as, "Please write more clearly and grammatically because I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying." Nothing untoward was meant. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, although better still would have been to say that you weren't sure you'd understood a specific point or points, which a) politely puts the problem on yourself and b) doesn't seem to categorise everything the other person has written as incomprehensible. I appreciate you clarifying. Night night. --Dweller (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry, but I won't be able to move this on until early next week.

I wrote a lengthy piece of text here yesterday and didn't realise I hadn't yet submitted it when my browser crashed. I haven't the head to rewrite it today. Sorry again and please bear with me. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We've all been there, and it's awful. Hang in there.

In the meantime, a change was made to Demi Moore that affects the status quo of part of the disputed passage. Since it does, I would not go on the page to make this edit myself, but I would ask if you might undo this edit, since it changes a passage directly involving the RfC and this mediation. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tenebrae, it doesn't really affect the status quo it just applies the Manual of Style as it applies to body text i.e; that boldface is only used to provide emphasis of the article name in the lead and where a source is directly quoted that uses boldface for emphasis. It's unlikely to be reinstated unless we agree that the comment belongs back in the lead (an unlikely but not impossible outcome) so I would tend to let it stand for now. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Stuart.Jamieson, with all due respect, I was speaking with Dweller. I'm afraid I neither needed nor asked for your opinion, and I find it remarkable that you saw fit to speak on Dweller's behalf as if you thought he could not respond intelligently for himself. You do not speak for him, for me, or for Wikipedia, and I'll thank you to keep your opinions to yourself when someone is directly addressing another person who is perfectly capable of answering. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You do not need to belittle me. I did not speak on Dwellers behalf. I gave an alternative viewpoint based on policy for both you and Dweller to weigh up. That is the point of mediation and why we voluntarily entered into it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't occur to you that you shouldn't butt in to a conversation you overhear between two other people? Are you this way in real life? Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dweller made a comment to us all - you made a reply and added on a request directly related to this mediation - I gave a counter viewpoint there was no butting in, and no conversation was established that I could butt into. Also there is no need for further belittlement of me, leave Dweller to consider our points and he can mediate. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is demonstrably untrue. I made a remark to him, personally, at 14:48, 27 January 2012. Please do not try to use a smokescreen of misinformation to hide your bad manners and obsessive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * More personal attacks and a contradiction of your previous description of the comment as a conversation. I'm going to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, Dweller can weigh up on Monday. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dweller, Understand completely I've lost a few recently thanks to Chrome doing a Ctrl+← (Page Back) rather than just ← (move one character back) Take your time, and I look forward to seeing your input next week. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the core issue
RL is bonkers just now, so I'll be brief. I think we're now ready to address the core issue. I've read through the RfC and it seems there are a number of different ways we could go about this. The RfC struggled to progress partly because people kept side-tracking the discussion in various directions. Before we begin, are you each happy to agree to focus your contributions entirely on making progress with drafting (including explaining your problems with a particular word or phrase etc)? --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and thank you again for your help. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is to notify one and all that I have made a post at Talk:Demi Moore in order to inform someone wanting to close the RfC that the issue is in mediation here, and to consult with Dweller. This technical violation was solely a neutral informational notice that an admin has become involved. It is posted at timestamp 05:27, 6 February 2012, for anyone wishing to confirm its neutral wording and nature. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And, yes, I'm afraid I've done so again because there is a persistent party there who appears to want to close the RfC in favor of his own personal opinion of the issue, rather than the compromise consensus we're all working toward. I believe RfCs are supposed to be closed by neutral parties, and since he does not appear to be that, this needs to be addressed on that page or else all the work all of us have done will be for nothing. So I apologize for posting there, but I'm sure none of us wants to see all our mutual work go to waste. I must admit, I thought this mediation would go a little quicker, and I'm concerned that Dweller, who was generous and well-intended to offer, may not have the time to devote. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm persistent? Opening this while the RFC was still running was a very bad idea, but it has been done now. This is probably the best course of action now. AIR corn (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm with you there &mdash; I was the first one to sign up under Dweller's request for agreement. It's the others who are resisting mediating like adults. And I would think a responsible Wikipedia editor like yourself would welcome a professional journalist who wants to have this encyclopedia adhere to at least as stringent standards as good journalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been trying not to reply as any comment (anyone makes) leads to unecessary wikidrama. However that said if the debate is to procede then I will be required to respond so I might as well start. From the start the RFC was mismanaged - it didn't need full mediation, but perhaps a clerk style organisation would have assisted it. Ideally each potential approach could have been put forward voted upon and debated individually - that didn't happen and very early on the debate took a turn as though consensus pointed to a a particular direction, when that had not been established. Perhaps it was Tenebrae's intention that the RFC was to be about wording a footnote that was to exist - but that is certainly not clear from his opening question and again there was no consensus established that supported asking that question. It also does little to resolve the debate when any legitimate policy or sourcing concerns from multiple editors are met with stock statements about editing standards or the (General) reliability of sources as opposed to specific reliability. I am happy to continue with mediation as a means to continue forward but would also happily continue forward in a RFC that examines all the relevant viewpoints.  What I'm less happy to do is be railroaded towards any particular parties view of NPOV relative to the subject at hand, especially when that POV has already raised BLP, OR, and NPOV concerns even among editors who have removed their objections only to keep the peace in the face of what youreallycan described as "a vocal position that we should mention what the press has historically mirrored around." Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That quote is solely someone's opinion, and not fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, there is a valid difference between an informed opinion and a layman's opinion. My opinion as a professional journalist is that People magazine didn't just make up a name out of thin air, and that The New York Times and Time Inc. publications run corrections on everyday people's names without prompting and would certainly do so if misspelling or misstating a celebrity's name, and that for these and many other reasons, my informed opinion after more than 30 years as a journalist for major newspapers and magazines is that "Demetria" is almost certainly her birth name. But I'm not pressing my opinion, not pressing my POV. Instead I've been respecting those who believe otherwise based on layman opinion, and have advocated an equal-weight compromise. I don't know what could be fairer or more accurate.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Missing the point Tenebrae, yes that was his opinion and that was why I quoted it - the point was that both he and Andy compromised without resolving their (very serious) concerns simply to keep the peace. Those concerns should have been resolved rather than being swept aside because they were serious and not addressing them will lead to them re-emerging later on. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you are making assumptions and treating them as fact. You are accusing Andy and youreallycan of acting in bad faith in that they would compromise out of convenience and not &mdash; as people do &mdash; out of keeping an open mind, and of seeing the validity of a view that didn't agree with theirs. Because you are incapable of compromise, you think no one else is capable of compromise &mdash; and so if they do compromise, it can't be because of a reasonable move toward the middle, but because they're "giving up." I find that incredibly cynical, and symptomatic of your "win at all costs" extremism that doesn't brook compromise.-Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, you have been using this logical fallacy from the beginning.--Taylornate (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, whether or not you are a professional journalist is irrelevant on Wikipedia. I think I've told you this twice.  For you to keep bringing it up like you are I believe is contentious.--Taylornate (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done some editing at Global warming. It's an area in which I have only layman's knowledge. If an environmental scientist or a professor of meteorology were to be part of that discussion, especially on a disputed issue, I would welcome their involvement! Who wouldn't want to have editors with professional expertise in an article subject helping to edit that article? Please think about this; please examine why you would object so vociferously to having this kind of collaborator on article. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I love having experts in the discussion. What I don't love (and what Wikipedia doesn't love) is being constantly reminded that someone considers himself an expert with the implication that his view should be given more weight in a dispute.  See Expert_editors.  Excerpt:  Experts do not have any other privileges in resolving edit conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory.--Taylornate (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you mischaracterize, and I have to assume you're not doing it deliberately. "Pull rank"? "Declare victory"? That would only be true if I boldly changed the article page, put Demetria as her sole birth name and declared, "I'm a professional and know best." I have absolutely not done anything even approaching that. I have respected a POV I disagree with and think is clearly inaccurate in order to offer a compromise that addresses both names given in reliable, major publications over the course of decades. That's more respect for others' views that some other people have done here. So please do not make such demonstrably false statements about me. After this, it'll be clear that it's deliberate smearing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed footnote
I don't care if one of you is Demi Moores mum, lets try to get something sorted. I really don't see a big problem of having a small footnote saying that her name has been reported as Demetria previously. We are not making a call on whether they are right or not, just noting that it has been done so. Some readers might be curious as to why we don't use Demetria in the article so it could help explain it (I am sure they won't want to read the talk page). It should be simple, factual and to the point, i.e. "Moores birth name has previously been reported as Demetria in some publications, including .......". Consensus at the talk page is against mentioning it in the article body and the discussion over a footnote showed the most promise of providing a resolution. I made a similar suggestion at the talk page, but thought this might be a better avenue. AIR corn (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the RFC several concerns were raised that directly relate to problems of having a footnote of this type.
 * BLP/Harm - Originally raised by Jimbo Wales (atBLPN) who pointed out that the wording may imply we are accusing Demi of being a liar - at the RFC Yworo reasserted this in the wider case that any mention of these sources raises doubt in the mind of the reader that Demi knows her own name. While that may be an acceptable outcome of reading a newspaper article on her - it shouldn't be an acceptable outcome of reading an encyclopaedia article on her.
 * Undue Weight - Raised by Taylornate at the RFC, this asserts that Demi is the best source for her own name - we have both Primary and Secondary Sourcing where she explicitly says her birth name was simply Demi. Any other source will be less strong and should be given no real weight.
 * Reliability of Sources - Raised by Andythe Grump at RFC, Our RS Guideline states "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors" - and asks that we "Judge whether it[The Source] is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." In this case we don't know which primary source was used by the secondaries, we don't know where they got their information - so while we may believe that these sources are generally considered to be reliable  we cannot judge whether the sources are reliable for the statement being made.  If we can't judge that then why mention them? I extended this argument later  by pointing out that several of the sources had not been internally consistent.
 * Original Research - Originally raised by Dr K. - while the good doctor raised issues about synthesis and weasel words as OR as well; he also raised the concern 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." - We do in fact have one source covering the name controversy itself, but it's not a great one and the concern would still be that we have to resort to original research in order to cover the controversy.
 * There may be other concerns as well perhaps WP:CIRCULAR for one since we have made the claim that her birthname was Demetria since 2003 - any newspaper article published after then (NYT for example) may have been influenced by our claim. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a footnote, and I have on supported a footnote (and previously supported a brief mention in the lede) but we do have to get these things right, both for the benefit of the BLP and for the benefit of the encyclopaedia as a who. Ironically I have been told that I am "someone who refuses to compromise or respect any other editor's opinion" when I've compromised and moved full circle from supporting this in the lead to a position where I believe not mentioning it is better than getting it wrong and getting this wrong is the one position I'm not willing to compromise to. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is amazingly one-sided summation of arguments made by the side with which Stuart.Jamieson agrees. He mentions by name claims made by Andy the Grump, Taylormate and others who agree with him, but ignores any of the many valid, professionally informed points that I have made. That is remarkably in bad faith.


 * Without spending an hour re-arguing all my points in detail: There is no original research in saying sources differ &mdash; that is fact. It would only be original research if we synthesized a conclusion from the differing sources.


 * Her name was given as "Demetria" in published print sources from at least 1996 that appear online. There are many, many earlier interviews with and articles about her that are not online, and as any researcher knows, the earlier the sourcing the better when it comes to establishing a baseline. As well, published sources like her famous Vanity Fair interview don't appear online. Relying only on online sources to draw a conclusion about a contentious point is not good research.


 * Jimbo isn't infallible: No one's necessarily saying Demi is lying. There have been many cases of people genuinely believing their name is one thing when on their birth certificate it's another. That's just one alternate explanation which he, in perfectly good faith, didn't consider. And while I had thought that this would go without saying, I think I need to say it since some people consider this an absolute impossibility: There is also the prospect that she is. indeed dissembling. It happens, and turning a blind eye to that possibility is irresponsible. We also need to consider this: Do we want to say that People and other early sources are lying? That People simply made up the extremely unlikely name "Demetria" out of thin air? Making a claim of malicious intent like that against a respected news organization like Time Inc. strikes me as remarkable. And if you're not saying the made it up, where did it come from?


 * No one's saying journalism is infallible. But organizations at the level of The New York Times and Time Inc. run corrections &mdash; often unprompted, often from just realizing it themselves too late &mdash; over things as minute as one-l "Philip" and 2-l "Phillip." For any one of these organizations to neglect to make a correction may be possible, of course, but for The New York Times AND People AND Entertainment Weekly, among others, ALL to be so irresponsible as to not run a correction over something as high-profile as a celebrity's name? The odds are that are so astronomical as to be statistically insignificant.


 * I could make further points from the talk-page discussion, since Stuart is being so selective, but I'll leave it at this for now. The overall point is: I'm not arguing for "Demetria" exclusively, despite my opinion. I recognize it appears both ways in print. And I, unlike uncompromising others who want it only their way or with undue weight toward their way, have been trying to find an accurate middle ground. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, I've told you several times your profession is irrelevant here, the latest being my last edit to this page, and you ignore me. I even told you specifically that I believe it is contentious to do so and lately it seems you are mentioning it in nearly every post you make.  Here you specifically imply that your points should be given special weight against more than three other editors.  You've completely ignored your multiple agreements to keep the discussion to this page.  You've even agreed to stop discussing on the article talk page and continued discussion in the same edit.  You seem incapable of disagreeing civilly and I'm finally reaching the end of my patience.
 * You present yourself as the reasonable compromise-seeking side, yet we wouldn't be here without your relentless POV-pushing. Without that, I think most editors at the talk page would be fine with omitting Demetria.  The fact that they relented to your pushing does not mean they agree with you and does not mean everyone should compromise with you even though some have.--Taylornate (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't ignore you; you're making an assumption in saying so, yet treating it as fact. I simply didn't notice your post. Given multiple sections here plus another page on which this discussion taking place, can you please consider that perhaps in this case your assumption is incorrect?


 * I saw your post there just now, and I've addressed it there and reiterate it here: I've done some editing at Global warming. It's an area in which I have only layman's knowledge. If an environmental scientist or a professor of meteorology were to be part of that discussion, especially on a disputed issue, I would welcome their involvement! Who wouldn't want to have editors with professional expertise in an article subject helping to edit that article? Please think about this; please examine why you would object so vociferously to having this kind of collaborator on article.


 * And, actually, you haven't my questions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of my 15:02, 10 February 2012 post. Would you please?


 * Additionally, you accuse me of POV-pushing when I absolutely am not. My POV is that it's clear to me and other journalists I've asked to look at this that "Demetria" is her birth name. Yet I am not pushing that POV. To say so is a deliberate misstatement. I have been trying to reach a principled, accurate, reasonable compromise &mdash; not insist on my POV that "Demetria" is correct. Compromise. Not "Demetria." Compromise.


 * RE: "most editors at the talk page would be fine with omitting 'Demetria'": Many editors on the talk page have agreed that "Demetria" is correct. And it's not a tally, in any case. I feel like a 15th-century mariner whose professional opinion is that the Earth is round. But others say, "No, the Earth isn't round, it's flat. Look around. Are you blind? Can't you see the Earth is flat? Even the Pope says the Earth is flat." Fine. So I don't push my POV that the Earth is round. I try to compromise and say, "Some sources say the Earth is round. Some, including the Pope, say it's flat." And yet because some people refuse to believe anything except that the Earth is flat, they won't agree to compromise, and claim that compromise is me pushing my POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not relenting, my first comment on this issue was that a footnote would be fine, just as long as Demetria is removed from the article. I arrived later than the rest, but Tenebrae you are beginning to wear on my patience too. You need to accept consensus, even though you don't agree with it and move on. AIR corn (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Missing the point again Tenebrae, I'm am being selective, because I'm not presenting an analysis of the whole RFC, I'm responding to AirCorn's statement by demonstrating some of the big problems that were voiced against a footnote. Your opinions represented in your reply here were not backed by community consensus they are your opinions and your alone and the debate should be held in a way that shows whether or not the community agrees with you rather than one that shows the community is fed up with a battlefield forming every time they raise a concern; remember Wikipedia is not about winning.   Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pot calling the kettle black. I've diligently sought compromise &mdash; and by definition, compromise is not about "winning." You, however, refuse to compromise. Why doesn't someone compromise? Because they' want to win1 By your extremist refusal to compromise, by your only wanting to get your way way, YOU' are the one who created a battlefield and only wants to [WP:WIN]]. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking about the issue. I will respond to your points below.


 * 1) BLP - My wording doesn't accuse her of lying. It merely says that sources have previously used Demetria. People will read into that what they want, but to me it is merely a statement of fact. If anything I thought it would indicate that the sources made a mistake. I don't think it violates BLP, the current wording is much worse.
 * 2) Undue - I actually agree with you here. That is why if we do mention anything it should only be in a footnote. A footnote used to explain discrepancies is not uncommon in articles (admittedly mostly historical ones). If future interviews use Demi as her birthname then this footnote should be removed.
 * 3) Reliability - Again why it should not be in the body. I agree Demi is the most reliable source for her name, but the newspapers are reliable sources for what they have printed.
 * 4) Original research - Keeping the footnote factual should alleviate this
 * Saying all this I have no problem omitting the footnote, it is more that I don't see the harm in having a footnote. What I don't want is for Moore to be contradicted in the article body as the current wording does. I was just hoping that at least some of you would agree to the wording above so we can at least improve the current article. I think at this stage we should at least remove Although disputed by Moore, many sources give her birth name as Demetria or Demitria (why did you rebold the names when you reverted me) as there is no consensus for that and it could very well be seen as a slight BLP violation. AIR corn (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer your question: I re-bolded since that was the status quo at the start of this RfC, and we're supposed to leave the status quo in place while the RfC goes on.


 * I appreciate your analysis, and I wish it didn't hinge on the POV point that "Demi" is absolutely correct, and gives that POV undue weight. When someone makes a claim about him- or herself, after disinterested journalists of major publications have said otherwise for decades, that person doesn't have automatic veto power over the facts as reported by The New York Times, Time Inc. etc. It is no different than if she said her age were 39. When major, reliable sources disagree on something, no responsible journalist would take the source's word for it as gospel. And an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than journalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have disputed your analogy to age multiple times. Every time, you willfully ignore me.--Taylornate (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I have. You disputed it once, that I can find offhand, at Talk:Demi Moore 21:06, 8 January 2012. And after Stuart responded first, I said in my subsequent response, "No journalist would take a source at face value when decades of reliable sourcing says otherwise." That's whether she says it about her name, her age, or whether she did or did not appear in Parasite, which she used to claim she didn't. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Aircorn, thanks for your responses. I'll try and keep my responses short:


 * I'm not accusing your wording of branding her a liar (Jimbo's comment was aimed at our current wording) but just demonstrating that there are a range of interpretations of such a footnote; some of which are more harmful to the person, others just irritate them (as being called Demetria seems to have done based on the twitter calls).
 * we already have recent news agency sourcing (post dating all substantial Demetria claims) that directly quotes her as saying her birthname was Demi. as you mentioned under #1 a footnote will indicate 1 of 2 things - either as I'm worried about Demi doesn't know or is lying about her own name (which is a BLP problem) or as you say that the newspapers have made a mistake - in which case it's irrelevant papers make mistakes, ignore it and move on. The only reason we ever cover mistakes or false stories is when coverage of those stories becomes noted its self not just because a lot of sources have made the same mistake.
 * You're right here, but additional to what I've said under the last point few of these newspaper claims (no matter how prestigious the source) substantiate their claim - Some do paraphrase a quote by her where she says her birth name came from the beauty product named Demetria in an attempt to substantiate it but none of them directly quote her. In the recent interview she has rephrased what she says and is directly quoted making clear that only "Demi" came from the name of the beauty product. Again as in the last point at what point is a source being a reliable source to the fact that it made an unremarkable unsubstantiated claim about Demi Moore relevant to Demi Moore's biography? Weekly World News is full of unsubstantiated claims we could fill our articles with, but we tend to regard unsubstantiated claims as unreliable.
 * Keeping the footnote factual still makes an observation which even if true is pretty much original to this encyclopedia we are presenting a fact for which no reliable, published sources exist. Yes it happens in the encyclopaedia all the time but it's not really supposed to (and we can get away with it where it's not challenged or likely to be challenged) but in a controversial BLP issue is it really the best way to approach the situation.
 * I said in one of my earlier posts (possibly before the RFC started) that the best way to deal with these concerns is to move away from "Source A said whilst Source B Said, but She Said" and simply sum up the facts weighted around the origin of her name - Demi's name came from a cosmetic called Demetria, however Demi has made it clear that her mother only used part of the Demetria name and that her birthname was in fact Demi. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are so many errors of logic, stemming from your making conclusions based on assumptions, and violations of basic, basic Journalism 101 that I almost don't know how to react. This is frankly incredible. At the core is this: When a source, no matter who, says something &mdash; especially something controversial or, as in this case, in disagreement with Pulitzer Price-winning publications &mdash; you don't just take their word for it.


 * Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in 2010 claimed to have served in Vietnam. According to your vast misunderstanding of basic biographical research technique, we should have just taken his word for it. Yet secondary sourcing discovered that this wasn't true.


 * I can give an untold number of examples of this. So I have to ask, and I respectfully request an answer: What is your special expertise in journalism or biographical research that you can blithely overturn a hundred years or more of established journalistic practice that demands secondary sourcing? Who are you that you know better than thousands of professional journalists adhering to ethical and professional standards? I have seen arrogance in my life, but never so much as in this discussion, where amateur, layman editors somehow claim that they are such skillful, expert, experienced and infallible biographical researchers that they don't have to follow basic, long-established professional standards &mdash; that somehow you're above this, and that your hobbyist game of "connect the dots" must be correct. Are you this way with medical articles? With classical-music articles? With articles on quantum physics? If you're not an expert in those fields, what makes you an expert in biographical research?


 * What makes you compare publications like The New York Times and the Encyclopedia Britannica with the Weekly World News? Do you really have no idea how that sounds? The Encyclopedia Britannica, with legions of expert writers, editors and fact-checkers, gives "Demetria." But Stuart Jamison and Taylornate know better. Stuart Jamison and Taylornate are smarter and better researchers than all the Encyclopedia Britannica people. My God.


 * I think you can see I've held myself in check until now, not having wanted to say these things. But there comes a point when one has to stop being polite and respectful to people of perfectly good faith who are nonetheless saying things so at odds with established journalistic practice that the integrity of this encyclopedia becomes an issue. I'd like to give Dweller another day, but I can't see any other course than arbitration. We need to get outside, disinterested admins to look at all these issues and make a ruling outside our hands. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We are not comparing ourselves to journalists, we are comparing Demi Moore's knowledge of her own name to journalists knowledge of her name. BTW, Arbs don't really deal with content dispute, but more with editor behaviour.


 * @Stuart. I apologise if these have been brought up before (the talk page is a mess to navigate), but could you link to the sources that use born Demi since the twit. I only know of the TVNZ one. If sources are now using Demi as her birth name then there is no need for a footnote. Also, is there any wording of a footnote that you would find acceptable? AIR corn (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we should "compare" ourselves to journalists but that an encyclopedia cannot have lower ethical and professional standards than journalism. And what I'm seeing is research behavior so below that bar that it's insulting to think anyone would seriously consider adding information to an encyclopedia based on such low standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Aircorn, As far as I can tell - the only English Language journalistic source that has discussed her birthname since the Twits is the BangShowbiz one which was syndicated to TVNZ and other news agencies (I originally found it in an Indian paper who were sourcing it to TVNZ). OK (Aus) did a crib sheet on Demi where they stated "Demetria" but it wasn't an interview or even an article. In books there have only been a few "The New Biographical Dictionary of Film [Fifth Edition]"  stated Demi and a few "What celebrities real names are" books have stated "Demetria" no real reliability or journalistic effort is shown in them. foreign language sources are a mixed bag and mainly paraphrasing older english language sources (both with Demi and Demetria) and mixing them with newer press releases about her.


 * I've never been fixed on a wording that I would find acceptable, I think weighting it in favour of the cosmetic claim does resolve most of my problems or building it around the Omaha World Herald.


 * According to People Magazine in 1996(amongst other sources) Demi's mother, named her  Demetria after a beauty product she saw in a magazine. In a later interview Demi made it clear that her mother only used part of the Demetria name and that her birthname was in fact Demi.


 * or


 * According to the Omaha World Herald, many references say Moore’s birthname was Demetria Gene Guynes but Moore commented on Twitter that Demi, not Demetria, is her full name. It wasn't clear from the tweet whether she has changed her name, or whether Demi was her actual birthname. Speaking to Bang Showbiz in 2010, Demi clarified "My mother named me Demi - which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up."


 * Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, your inability to understand proper sourcing is killing me. We've gone over this before, that TV New Zealand is not the original source, and the original source is an anonymous agency called BANG Showbiz that do appears to do no original reporting and seems nothing but a non-RS gossip site. Oh, great reporting skills! The New York Times isn't reliable but an anonymous gossip site that does no original reporting IS! Wow, I wish I were as smart and skilled at biographical research as you! We've been through this before, so I'll re-post my comments from Talk:Demi Moore which you apparently didn't do me the courtesy of reading:


 * "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) -- reposted by and at Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, I don't believe I claimed "TV New Zealand" was the original source there, I merely linked to it as a convenience. In fact I explicitly said twice the source was from BangShowbiz so desist with the Ad hominems. As for the rest of your post your opinion of Bang Showbiz doesn't interest me - They claim to carry out their own interviews and they clearly cite other publications when they have copied interviews (this is cited to Harpers Bazaar; they also have a Substantial editorial team for anything they release . To be honest your reporting skills or Virginia Heffernan's reporting skills aren't relevant when I want to know where that fact came from so that I know it can be verified as a fact by checking with that same source - Bang Showbiz tells me that - It came directly from Demi Moore (and verifies what she has said on Twitter), the New York Times doesn't and may as well be copying from us (since we used Demetria in 2003). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, my God. The arrogance to suggest that the armies of trained journalists at The New York Times, the equivalent of the Major Leagues, would crib from Wikipedia is so supremely hubristic that I can't believe anyone would seriously say that. What kind of person even thinks this? The New York Times makes fun of Wikipedia! No matter how important you may think Wikipedia is, The New York Times can do its own reporting. Jesus.


 * BTW, this is a dead link. And that much-vaunted journalistic paragon BANG Showbiz cribbed the quotes here, without attribution, from the print edition of the gossip-tabloid Hello. And do I have to say again that only a naive amateur, with no understanding whatsoever of basic, standard journalistic processes, would take a source's word in a contentious issue as gospel straight from God. Who do you think you are that you think you have better journalistic / research skills than people at The New York Times, Time Inc. or the Encyclopedia Britannica? What's your background? How many years of professional reporting and research have you had? Have you ever taken a journalism class? What exactly, outside of your belief in yourself, qualifies you to make the pronouncements that you know better than The New York Times, Time Inc. or the Encyclopedia Britannica? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I thought this went without saying, but now I believe I actually have to say this out loud: Some gossip tabloids purportedly quoting people are actually doing "checkbook journalism" and paying a celebrities' acquaintances and employees to tell them what a celebrity may or may not have said in private. When you pay people for quotes, they tend to say anything. This is why we use impeccable journalistic sources with decades if not over a hundred years of experience, reputation and awards, as opposed to gossip tabloids like The National Enquirer or Hello. Seriously, would the Encyclopedia Britannica source something to the Enquirer or Hello? No, it would not. And if we're an encyclopedia, neither should we. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep I accidentally delete the "l" off the end of it but thanks for pointing it out. If that quote is from a print copy of Hello then clearly you must have that copy so feel free to prove it. As for your last questions, this isn't a biography about me; feel free to write one. I could point you to the secondary sources you need, but I can't help write it because I've got a conflict of interest. Finally if I understand the last part correctly you're now stating on the record that not only id Demi Moor Lying about her name, she has been bribed to do so? If so for what reason, the only advantage I see is that is discredits anyone who has a vested interest in calling her Demetria and I don't see how that would interest TVNZ, Bang showbiz, Hello or anyone else except perhaps you?Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jesus. No, I did not in any way say Moore was bribed. I said gossip tabloids use checkbook journalism to pay acquaintances and employees to report on or to make up things that a celebrity said. And you've just demonstrated the care I've come to expect when it comes to understanding facts.


 * I'm not going to respond to your bad-faith accusation that I am lying about Hello. You have behaved abominably &mdash; for example, dismissing the name "Demetria" in a yearbook photo by claiming, "Oh! Vandals must have played a practical joke that the faculty adviser must have been in on!" &mdash; but this takes the cake. For the record, no, I am not lying. And if you want to start mud-slinging, I should think that would be even more evidence of the kind of person you are, who would say such things.


 * So I guess I'm going to need to take a morning off, go the Lincoln Center Library, and pull out whatever pre-Internet articles they have on Demi Moore. Don't worry: I'll scan the pertinent pages and post them for you since, without provocation, you've just called me a liar and a sleaze.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Never used the words Liar or Sleeze - Asked you to prove it came from Hello because I'd like to check that copy for myself. My wife is an ardent Hello reader and has a large selection of back issues from that period - I haven't found that article going through them so it would be helpful if you could point me to the correct one so I can see what it says there.
 * By your own admission you have never seen this Yearbook and you don't even know what source previously mentioned it- so why are you citing it as evidence expecting not to get challenged on it and you accuse me of poor journalistic standards?
 * No-one has asked you to go to any library or make any copies, but if you're going to make claims then at least be prepared to show something that we can verify. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgot to Add - not that it matters to me since I didn't intend using it; but it was raised during the RFC that the 1991 Vanity Fair interview wasn't online - it is now on Google  Page 150 is rather helpful it uses Demi not Demetria and says 'Virginia Guynes found a name for her daughter “in a beauty magazine." says Moore. “I don't know if it was the name of a hair product or a makeup." As a child, her pretty name was almost all Moore had going for her...' Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lying about your age would be self serving. Lying about having served in Vietnam would be self serving.  Lying about your name would not be self serving.  That is an important distinction in Wikipedia policy.  I've mentioned this before and you ignored me.
 * I find it hard to believe you've been holding back, but if you truly consider your posting until now to be polite and respectful, I'm curious to see where you go from here.--Taylornate (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, you're missing the much, much larger point, which is: You don't just take somebody's word for something, whether it's age, background, birth name or how many men were running from the scene. Taking someone's word as gospel without doing secondary sourcing is irresponsibly negligent &mdash; and I just can't seem to make you understand this first-year-journalism-school concept. Because apparently you know better than journalism professors. If you don't believe me, let me demonstrate how it is only your personal POV that "Lying about your name would not be self serving." What is your factual basis for saying that? You haven't any &mdash; because there IS none. It's just your opinion. Here's why:


 * Aside from the overall framework that an actor creates an entire persona, from appearance to name to background, history is rife with actors and other people claiming birth names that are not theirs. Comics creator Joe Simon, until just before he died, gave his name as Joseph Henry Simon &mdash; though in fact he had no middle name and his first name was Hymie. That's right, he was Hymie Simon, but he never told anyone that. And Yul Brynner swore for years, falsely, that he was born Taidje Khan. And these are just two off the top of my head with breaking a sweat and doing hours of research.


 * So, no, Taylornate, anyone with any professional knowledge about this field knows that it is not true that "lying about your name would not be self serving."


 * I think you owe all of us here an apology for deliberately pushing an uninformed statement as fact when it was solely your personal opinion.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, professional experience is not required on Wikipedia nor does it grant you special status. Are you going to continue bringing this up?  We are not bound by professional standards.  Wikipedia has its own standards and in some cases we absolutely can take somebody's word for something.  Did you read the policy I linked?--Taylornate (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read it. And it's not a policy, for goodness' sake. It's an essay. Anybody can write an essay about anything. What don't you in turn read Expert retention and Competency is required.


 * You say you're in med school. If I were to come to a medical article, and insist, with my layman's opinion, that vaccinations cause autism, because I can cite some medical literature and I can quote Jenny McCarthy, who says her son became autistic after a vaccination, and I refuse to even compromise with your informed opinion that vaccines do not cause autism, how would you or any other professionally informed editor take that?


 * There are other questions of mine you've been refusing to answer. Please start with that one. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * RE: "and in some cases we absolutely can take somebody's word for something." Who gets to pick and choose that? You? Why? Why not me? Or someone else? You're saying you're allowed to have POV and decide when we can take someone's word for something. That is the height or arrogance. Someone who isn't trained in biographical research is going to make an opinion affecting an encyclopedia based on his wanting to believe some pretty actress. Whereas a real encyclopedia, as mentioned, doesn't exactly operate that way. But that's OK. YOU know better that The New York Times and the Encyclopedia Britannica and Time Inc. You. A college student. Know better than all these professional editors. In that case, maybe I should open up a medical practice. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked you to this policy. It is a policy, not an essay.
 * I can tell you what I would not do. I would not wave around my credentials.  That is productive neither in the clinic nor on Wikipedia.  That would be the height of arrogance, as you like to say.
 * What questions of yours did I miss?
 * Whoever can convincingly apply common sense and Wikipedia policy, such as the one I linked above. That is what consensus means on WP.  Trying to use credentials to present yourself as an authority who can make demands is not productive.--Taylornate (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You had also linked to Expert_editors at 15:39, 11 February 2012. I'm not sure what your point is about WP:ABOUTSELF &mdash; all that says is that we can use self-published sources under certain circumstances. Why gave you the impression I said otherwise? RE: "convincingly apply common sense" &mdash; How is naively accepting anything anyone says, in clear contradiction to journalistic standards and Encyclopedia Britannica standards, common sense?

As for my earlier question: I didn't ask what you would not do. Why do you refuse to answer? I repeat: "If I were to come to a medical article, and insist, with my layman's opinion, that vaccinations cause autism, because I can cite some medical literature and I can quote Jenny McCarthy, who says her son became autistic after a vaccination, and I refuse to even compromise with your informed opinion that vaccines do not cause autism, how would you or any other professionally informed editor take that?" --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I give you two links, one of them a policy. Then, I refer back to the policy I linked and you feel justified in assuming I'm referring to the other link, and complaining about it not being a policy?  I'm not going to continue to try to explain points that you pretend to not understand.  I think I'm done here.--Taylornate (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I said in the first paragraph of my 01:02, 14 February 2012 post that I went to the policy at WP:ABOUTSELF that you had linked to.


 * And I take great exception to your bad-faith claim about "points that you pretend to not understand." It's the responsibility of a speaker to communicate clearly and you have not been doing that. Don't you dare accuse me of dishonorable behavior when you're the one who refuses to answer my reasonable questions.


 * So again I ask: How would you, as a knowledgeable medical student, take it if some layman with no medical knowledge were to insist that vaccines cause autism, and refused to compromise, and would only let you mention in a footnote that some sources say vaccines don't cause autism? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this is what I'm talking about: Yes, I read it. And it's not a policy, for goodness' sake. It's an essay. Anybody can write an essay about anything.
 * Autism is irrelevant.--Taylornate (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And this is what I'm talking about, at my 01:02, 14 February 2012 post: "I'm not sure what your point is about WP:ABOUTSELF — all that says is that we can use self-published sources under certain circumstances."


 * "Autism is irrelevant" Nice cop-out. And how mean and disrespectful. I asked a valid question to address the pointless accusation you keep throwing up when I talk about how you and Stuart dismiss and demean the concepts of journalistic ethical and professional standards, standards an encyclopedia should at least meet if not exceed. If I were to come to a medical article, and say that vaccinations cause autism, which in your informed opinion is clearly wrong, how would you react if I and a couple of other editors keep insisting that our layman's opinion was right and your informed opinion was wrong? Answer me that honestly if you can. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, self-published sources, like Moore's Twitter feed.


 * How I might respond to a hypothetical situation on an unrelated article is irrelevant, but fine: If I was truly alone in my view and there was a clear consensus against me, I'd let it go.  I know you aren't going to like this answer, but I'm not sure what else you expect from me.--Taylornate (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So you're OK with letting layman consensus state in Wikipedia that vaccines cause autism. Wow. Doesn't that just speaks volumes. You're saying you would knowingly put a falsehood into Wikipedia just because you don't want to "lose" this discussion by admitting that an informed opinion can help keep an article accurate when layman insist on their extreme opinions and refuse to even compromise. Wow.


 * Well. I don't believe the Demi Moore article should state the equivalent that vaccines cause autism. If you're OK with letting a medical article state that, when your knowledgeable opinion could keep that from happening, that's appalling. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And you're misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF. That just says self-published sources can be used, not that they should be used or are desirable to use. And there's nothing in the policy that excuses it from WP:UNDUE. A self-published source is no different from any other. If you think it gives veto power over all other sources, including Pulitizer-Prize winning major newspapers and the most venerable encyclopedia in the world, that's plain not true. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in the improbable hypothetical situation we described, my knowledgeable opinion would be powerless against consensus. I wouldn't be OK with it, but Taylornate being OK with it isn't a requirement for every edit on WP.  It doesn't matter how you or I think WP should work.  What matters is how it does work.  The reality is that I would not get extra say about Autism and you don't get extra say here.  Also, very clever wording here:   You're saying you would knowingly put a falsehood into Wikipedia—You know quite well I didn't say that.  And you claim to be a professional journalist?


 * I'm not misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, but since it's taken you several posts just to acknowledge that I actually referenced the policy, and that it allows some things in certain circumstances, I don't see us having a productive conversation about it.--Taylornate (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've been so absent of late, but I'm back. It seems there's some wording we can work from, so I've detached it into a subsection, below. Can we work on the substance only, and leave alone accusations and comments about one another? --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording
(Copied from above) ''According to the Omaha World Herald, many references say Moore’s birthname was Demetria Gene Guynes but Moore commented on Twitter that Demi, not Demetria, is her full name. It wasn't clear from the tweet whether she has changed her name, or whether Demi was her actual birthname. Speaking to Bang Showbiz in 2010, Demi clarified "My mother named me Demi - which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up." ''

I prefer this version. However I would remove the "according to ...". I don't think there is any doubt that lots of sources are saying her birthname was "Demetria" and simply using it as a reference at the end should suffice. I would also like to just include the tweet as worded, instead of analysing it too much. I am ambivalent about the last sentence; I think the twitter feed is enough. Slightly re-written version below. AIR corn (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"While many references have put Demetria Gene Guynes as Moore’s birthname, she wrote on Twitter in June 2009 that "Demetria is a beautiful name. my full name though is actually just Demi!" Speaking to Bang Showbiz in 2010, Demi said "My mother named me Demi - which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up."


 * I do like that wording, although Generally I don't like using Twitter as a source which is why I prefer the secondary BangShowbiz (or Hello if Tenebrae can provide a reference to that article so we can check it) but if the consensus is to go with the tweet then I'm happy to support it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a portion ("I obsess and look in ... is falling and I can't get up'") from the same Hello interview, which is not online. BANG Showbiz plagiarized it without attribution.


 * I certainly have no problem with the tweets, but citing a gossip site that plagiarizes from a non-RS tabloid gossip magazine is in no way acceptable sourcing &mdash; certainly not compared with The New York Times, Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly and the Encyclopedia Britannica, which all give Demetria.


 * The first sentence works for me as a footnote, though I think we can trim the language a bit:


 * So the lead sentence should say "Demi Moore (born November 11, 1962) is an American actress...." That gives equal weight to both versions: The one that appears for years in major newspapers, magazines and encyclopedias, and Moore's latter-day claim.


 * Lincoln Center's theater library opens at noon. I'm taking some time off to wander down there and see what pre-Internet print sources say. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to say - the interview for both sources appears to have been given outside The Late Night Show with David Letterman. In or around April 21, 2010 and both interviews seem to use pictures from outside the studio. Since Bangshowbiz doesn't  identify  the journalist and my wife doesn't appear to have that issue (though I'll keep searching) it looks like a freelancer has sold the same interview to both organisations with Hello having the 6 month exclusive rather than one copied from the other. That said an interview is an interview wherever it took place, a claim with no substantiation is just a claim wherever it is made.... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You make a number of assumptions and suppositions in your post, and also aren't being constructive in helping Dweller find a suitable phrasing. I won't even get into the basic notion that major stars don't do off-the-cuff interviews with the press on the street or in the stage wings of a talk show. These things are set up by publicists, done by appointment, and done for a specific periodical. No one does an interview for Film Comment and turns around and sell it later to The National Enquirer. BANG Showbiz clearly did what's called a "cut-and-paste job" without crediting the original source, and Hello, in any event, is hardly a credible source. There's no way of knowing if Demi Moore ever really talked to that magazine &mdash; which is extremely doubtful &mdash; or if it paid one of her acquaintances or employees for "quotes" from her. My God. The New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica you compare to the Weekly World News, yet you believe a sleazy rag like Hello that really is close to being Weekly World News.


 * In any case, we've got a tweet from her verified Twitter page. That's credible and it's all we need.


 * I've just come back from the library and my deadlines are heating up so I'll be back later. I found some interesting stuff &mdash; including the fact she tells practically every story of early life differently at one time or another, including about how she got her name. And journalists have caught in -- heaven forbid! -- lies. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While the Omaha Herald does use the wording "Most" it doesn't represent the fact of the matter that it's closer to equally reported, paraphrasing it as "many" still gives that there is significant weight to the claim but not that that weight is overwhelming other claims. Also I prefer the tweet given by Aircorn as the tweet you are giving repeats what is said in the prior source and raises uncertainty as to her meaning in the mind of the reader. BTW you know that the Levenson enquiry raised a complaints against Hello thfor buying a stories off companies (like or actually) BangShowbiz and reworking it so it looked like an interview then presenting it as an interview they had actually had carried out. It's still possible that there is a single source for the interview but that they let Hello have it first and BangShowbiz and may be that source they credit material from Hello regularly and it just seems odd that they would not in this case when they do otherwise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm personally fine with either one of Moore's two tweets. You pick.


 * You can't change the wording or the meaning of the Omaha World-Herald to suit your presumptions. Let's quote the paper directly if you want, so that it's clear that it's the newspaper saying this.


 * I'm not sure what exactly you're saying about Hello and Bang Showbiz &mdash; you seem to have been typing somewhat overexcitedly &mdash; but all that's off-topic anyway. Neither Hello nor Bang Showbiz can be considered in any respect whatsoever as reliable sources. Fortunately, we have Moore's tweet from her verified Twitter page, which is about as direct and authentic as anyone could want.


 * I've taken a little break in-between writing about Shakira and Bruce Jenner and heaven knows what else today for my newspaper, but I should be done soon. I'll put my library findings, which I'm sure will be useful to the biography in general, in a separate section so as not to muddy this one. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys: a suggestion. At this stage, do you think you're able to put together a framework of things you agree to, leaving gaps / placeholders for things you're still ironing out? I think it would really help. I've created a section for it, below. Perhaps Stuart, could you start - Tenebrae, if you feel Stuart's included anything he shouldn't, please comment as calmly and briefly as you can in the section I've given you. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording agreed, so far
Stuart's version: ______references give Demetria Gene Guynes as Moore's birth name, (full Omaha newspaper cite here with title, date, etc: http://www.omaha.com/article/20090825/LIVING/708259914) though Moore said in   ______ "_____"  (full Twitter cite with source, date, etc. http://twitter.com/#!/mrskutcher/status/______)

Tenebrae comments
The Omaha World-Herald article cited says "Most references say Moore’s name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes." I don't think it's proper to change the meaning or the wording of the citation. The sentence should begin with "Most."

(And indeed, aside from The New York Times, Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly, the Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources, I uncovered another major-RS cite: Variety March 9, 1995, "ShoWest Honors Demi Moore" (section), "Beauty's Got Brains and Talent" by Michael Dare. In a Variety special section completely devoted to Demi Moore, the article reads, "She was born Nov. 11, 1962, as Demetria Guynes in Rosewell, N.M.")

Is this the correct tweet, Stuart? https://twitter.com/#!/mrskutcher/status/1766980116 "Demi is the name I was born with!" (May 11, 2009).


 * Leaving aside the issue of whether having most of something scarce also means you have many of them and they can be taken to be synonymous.
 * Tweets, I'm still undecided between the one you cite here, https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/mrskutcher/status/115200444279701504 " it's just Demi Gene Guynes ", and http://twitter.com/#!/mrskutcher/status/63312781096652801  " No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria![sic]" when asked the question "What's your name? Demetria Gene Guynes??" Other than the spellling mistake the latter is the clearest - do Taylornate, or Aircorn have preferences? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using both tweets and dropping the Bang Showbiz sentence. I am not fussed about whether "most", "many" or neither is used to start the footnote. AIR corn (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If "Most" and "Many" are "synonymous," then there's no reason not to use the specific term that the professional journalist and columnist used rather than substituting a less exact interpretation. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC


 * As I said I wasn't going to debate whether or not they were synonymous - but just since you question it; I guess you know a synonym does have different effects depending on the context "ill" and "sick" are synonymous in the context of "I can't come into work today because I'm ..." but sick can carry more urgency in the context of "I think I'm going to be ..." (at least in UK English it does). In this case we have The context of the Omaha World-Herald where Cleveland Evans is stating his opinion and the context of Wikipedia where we are stating a fact. I would rather paraphrase Clevelands opinion with a word that is synonymous in representing the opinion Cleveland Evans (that sources for Demetria are numerous) but in the context of stating a fact is not so absolute - we can't from the opinion piece know how many sources he checked or where those sources were from all we know is that in his opinion the majority of sources he checked used Demetria. It's quite possible for us to use his opinion and if you wish to propose wording that directly quotes Cleveland Evans and attributes this as his only opinion I'll certainly consider that wording but I#m nothappy about presenting his opinion as pure fact.  17:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy presenting your opinion as pure fact. All we are stating is that this is what a professional journalist in a reliable-source publication confirmably said. If you're going to start questioning whether the Omaha World-Herald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, is not to be trusted and a fan's layman opinion is more trustworthy, all I can say is, I would never deliberately change the context and meaning of a cited source in order to reflect a personal opinion.


 * Trying to be constructive here: If you're more comfortable with quoting Evans directly, how is this:


 * "Demi Moore (born November 11, 1962) is an American actress...." FOOTNOTE: Per Evans, Cleveland, [title with link, paper, date], "Most references say Moore's name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes. ... 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." More wrote on Twitter [link] in [May or June 2009, whichever tweet we use}, "[Demi Moore Twitter quote]."  (If we use the tweet where she says it's her birth name, we don't need Evans' latter two sentences.)
 * --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting presenting my opinion as pure fact. My opinion is that a significant minority of sources have say Moore's name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes and I haven't proposed that as a potential wording - I haven't even proposed an equal number of sources which was something that we were debating on the RFC - Instead I've compromised with "Many" which means an indefinite large number. Throwing around statements like " questioning whether the Omaha World-Herald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, is not to be trusted" seems to show little regard for Wikipedia policy which is that no matter how generally reliable (how many Pulitzer Prizes the paper has or how many Gold Stars the Journalist got on his first essay at Columbia) they can all make mistakes (and they don't all acknowledge them). Using "most" would be a red flag situation if we did it because it flies in the face of what's observable and Evan's opinion is not an exceptional source that can alleviate that red flag. As for your proposed wording; why have you added the "Moore Told..." and "It's not clear..." sentences? You seem to have removed these in a previously presented wordings, so I'm wondering why they make an appearance? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't advocating the quote; I was trying to go along with what seemed like your desire for the quote. And I did say: "If we use the tweet where she says it's her birth name, we don't need Evans' latter two sentences." Also, just for the record, it is a purely opinion that "a significant minority" of sources says Demetria. It looks to me to be just the opposite.


 * In any event, we seem to be progressing in the section below. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did say "My opinion is that a significant minority..." So I was of no doubt that that was purely opinion. :-) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Most"
Now that we're beginning to get a framework we can work on, I'm hoping to help you resolve the elements of dispute.

The first is the word "Most". It may be factual that most do, but it's not a great word, because it means everything from >50% to <100%.

Chaps, have you considered dropping any need for a word before "references", so making it the indisputable, "References say Moore's name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes...", thus comparing Moore's own word with third-party references, neutrally? --Dweller (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be happy with that, although I feel it flows better with something before "references" I would be happy to compromise in this manner. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll agree. I'm not sure about having two tweets &mdash; they say essentially the same thing, so it seems redundant. But if it'll bring peace, I will go along with having two tweets.


 * So is this it? "Demi Moore (born November 11, 1962) is an American actress...."  FOOTNOTE: References say Moore's name at her birth in 1962 was Demetria Gene Guynes. (c.f. Evans, Cleveland, [title with link, paper, date].)  Moore wrote on Twitter [link] "[quote here]" in May 2009 and '[quote here]" in June 2009." END FOOTNOTE.


 * P.S.: I love the word "chaps," by the way. Makes me feel very erudite and British!--Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Was there consensus for two tweets? I saw Aircorn suggested it but I was only looking for Pro's and cons of each of the tweets. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was just a suggestion, I would prefer two of these tweets instead of the Showbiz sentence (although that seems to be sorted). If I had to chose I would go with "Demi is the name I was born with!" as it is the most unambiguous, although I like the other two as they refute Demetria. "Demetria is a beautiful name. [M]y full name though is actually just Demi!" would be my second choice as the "Demitria" spelling in the other one could just add extra confusion. Either way I think this is coming together well. AIR corn (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We could set the Tweet in context refuting Demetria by showing the question as well as the reply.
 * On the May 11, 2009 Moore was asked through Twitter whether Demi was her real name or a screen name for Demetria like Demi Lovato Moore responded by saying "Demi is the name I was born with!"
 * OR
 * on June 19,2009 Moore sent a Tweet to Demetria Alexander commenting on how beautiful Alexander's name was but commenting that her name was "actually just Demi!"
 * and so on... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought we were being serious about finding appropriate wording. Throwing lengthy soapboxing into the footnote is not a good-faith gesture. I find it remarkable that anyone would think that the name of some random person that Moore is tweeting to is of any encyclopedic value at all. If we're going to start "setting things in context" then for equal weight we need to set "References say" in context with "References including The New York Times, Variety, Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly and the Encyclopedia Britannica say Moore's name at birth is..."


 * Every time we come close to a consensus, Stuart throws the whole thing back to the start for rearguing of the whole matter. I would like not think that this is a deliberate gesture on the part of someone for whom compromise is unacceptable, and is determined to get his POV in, equal weight be damned. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's an act of Bad Faith here it's not on my part. Aircorn raised a concern (which might not have been substantial) that he prefered "the other two[tweets] as they refute Demetria." I responded to this concern by suggesting that if the tweets are placed in context then they also refute Demetria. I don't believe anyone beyond you believes naming which specific newspapers/sources have given Demetria to show how prestigious they are gives the argument any more weight; they do believe it is worthwhile mentioning that a significant number do and that is all the weight. I don't really want to go back to the stage where we also have to state the names of references that have used Demi. However we should be presenting no ambiguity in what we present compared to the twitter conversation that took place (if that was our intent we would just us Cleveland Evan's opinion that "It’s not clear whether she’s claiming she was born as Demi or has now legally changed her name.") Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are doing everything possible to sabotage this because of your personal conviction that she was named Demi at birth, despite the wealth of sources that say otherwise and her own checkered history with the truth: Read what I learned below doing library research. Which of the two versions of how she got her name should we believe? This is a textbook example of why &mdash; and this is not my opinion, this is basic Journalism 101 &mdash; you don't "just take someone's word for it."


 * Aircorn and I had agreed to a version of what you yourself suggested. Maybe you weren't expecting that. So when it looked like a reasonable and accurate compromise was about to happen, you're suddenly demanding something else that pushes your personal POV. It's not enough that we have Demi herself stating this. It's not enough that both Aircorn and I are willing to agree to two statements by her if necessary. No, that's not enough. You want more, more and more, and it's never going to end, is it? You don't want compromise; you're like a religious zealot and you're trying to find a way to say, "Well, this is what the non-believers say, but here's my long explanation of God's word and if you don't believe that you're a heretic."


 * So are we throwing everything out and starting over again, or are we going with a version of what you yourself suggested initially? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if your comments are designed to dissuade me, distract me, or discredit me? Equally I'm not sure if you want me to be pissed off or laugh in your face? I'm not sabotaging anything, I'm not demanding anything, I'm so far from a a religious zealot and I have never in my life (either literally in my philosophical life, or metaphorically in my everyday life) accused anyone of being Heretic - I accept an individual's beliefs and their freedom to believe it (and have been literally accused of being a heretic for doing so), and finally I'm not suggesting throwing everything out. This is a discussion; someone says "I'm not sure about this.." another person says "well what about..." the first person can then say "no, it's O.K the way it is" and the second "that's cool" - I'm still waiting for the first person (Aircorn) to reply and if he doesn't like my suggestion I'll say "That's Cool"  and move on with finding consensus - If he does like it then perhaps you can make a reasoned argument about it rather than launching a full scale attack full of Ad Hominems against me - Behaviour like this isn't conducive to a constructive atmosphere and is liable to land an editor with a battleground mentality a Topic Ban from that article or editing area (in this BLP's). I hope you can wait for AirCorn or Dweller to weigh in but if not that's your prerogative. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't even know how to reply to something like this. Read what I wrote a bit more carefully, please, and if you still think I was speaking literally and not metaphorically about religion then we are not even on the same planet.


 * And don't you dare threaten me when I've done nothing but try to find compromise and you're the one who seems unable or unwilling to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you were talking literally; I said that my the reverse situation described me better and that I had experienced the reverse situation literally because of it (nothing to do with you.
 * I am willing to find compromise, but not one that compromises the integrity of the living person - clearly you want to find one that doesn't compromise the integrity of certain sources. These are not mutually exclusive and I do wish you would stop attacking me all the time.
 * I did not threaten you, I described a situation that could happen - I'm not the only one who has advised you of this during this debate (in fact I count myself as at least the fourth) and I see from your talk page, ANI, and ARB (amongst other pages) that you have been advised similarly in the past - Take it for whatever it is worth. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Compromise the integrity of the living person"? How? By neutrally stating facts as given in some of the most respected, reliable and responsible publications in the world? So from what you're saying, you'll only agree to a compromise if is says exactly your opinion. That's the opposite of compromise. That's saying, "I'll never agree to anything that's not my POV."
 * "I did not threaten you, I described a situation that could happen" &mdash; That's almost exactly what the Muslim extremists who threatened the South Park creators last year said.
 * I see you're conveniently not mentioning the raft of peer-bestowed awards and the many, many kind words directed at me by fellow editors, including many novices I have helped to mentor. As for your selective viewing otherwise: Extremists threaten people all the time; that's their way. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, you know you use the word "Fact" there on the basis that the sources are "respected, reliable and responsible" not on the basis that the information is actually shown by them to be true - We haven't shown (for either case) the information to be factual and neither have the sources - so it's not about "neutrally stating facts", it's about "neutrally stating points of view" and I'm quite happy to compromise to other positions - there are plenty of examples above but I'm not going to compromise on a position that makes the living person look like a liar, incompetent, or twisting the facts to suit themselves without at least reasonable coverage in a some of the most respected, reliable and responsible publications in the world that says explicitly (rather than the implicit coverage that has been presented here time and again) that they are - we don't have that here.
 * And now you're comparing me to an extremist who encouraged his followers to commit acts of violence including murder - do you really think that's what I'm doing? Tenebrae, my advice was to you to be careful of how you treat others, not to incite anyone else to do anything against you - making this comparison pretty much undermines the argument that all your peer awards and thank you letters show you to be a nice guy. All they do is show that you're good at writing and in that area of your life you are recognised by your peers - they don't make you out to be whiter than white in all other areas of your editing life so they are irrelevant to what I was saying to you. Again take it as helpful advice not as any sort of threat. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of dragging this out anymore with my comment about the tweets. Ideally I would prefer to keep the footnote relatively simple and to the point as much as possible. I see the following four options (removed "in 1962" as unnecessary, but that is only minor).


 * 1) References say Moore's name at her birth was Demetria Gene Guynes. Moore wrote on Twitter "Demi is the name I was born with!" in May 2009.
 * 2) References say Moore's name at her birth was Demetria Gene Guynes. Moore wrote on Twitter "Demi is the name I was born with!" in May 2009 and "Demetria is a beautiful name. [M]y full name though is actually just Demi!" in June 2009.
 * 3) Most references say Moore's name at her birth was Demetria Gene Guynes. Moore wrote on Twitter "Demi is the name I was born with!" in May 2009 and "Demetria is a beautiful name. [M]y full name though is actually just Demi!" in June 2009.
 * 4) While most references say Moore's name at her birth was Demetria Gene Guynes, she wrote on Twitter "Demi is the name I was born with!" in May 2009 and "Demetria is a beautiful name. [M]y full name though is actually just Demi!" in June 2009.

I like the 4th one because it reads a lot better and explains why Demi is used in the body of the article as well as acknowledging that most sources use Demetria. I can live with any of the others as well. AIR corn (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am completely on board with AIR corn . Any one of them (with the Omaha World-Herald link and links to the tweets, of course) works for me, and like Aircorn I like the 4th version best. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keeping the footnote simple and to the point is fine with me, While I like the fact that the 4th reads better; "Most" is already a bone of contention we have agreed to drop so I would have to support #2. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm on board with #2. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So just to insert the links, then, do we actually have agreement on:

"Demi Moore (born November 11, 1962) is an American actress...." FOOTNOTE: References say Moore's name at her birth was Demetria Gene Guynes. (c.f. Evans, Cleveland, [title with link, paper, date].) Moore wrote on Twitter, "Demi is the name I was born with!" in May 2009, [link "May 2009" to the tweet] and "Demetria is a beautiful name. [M]y full name though is actually just Demi!" in June 2009. [link "June 2009" to the tweet]." END FOOTNOTE. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets do it. Shall we take it to the talk page and see what happens. AIR corn (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to offer virtual back-slaps, cognac and cigars all around, now that, out of all of everyone's oft-heated efforts for months, we've hammered out something clear, simple and accurate that reflects all sides. I wish nuclear nonproliferation and efforts to fight global climactic change yielded such a positive result in the end.


 * Dweller, I think you've done the near-impossible, and I apologize for my doubts at some particularly low points. Your calmness, patience and laser-like focus brought together disparate views that I had about given up hope could be reconciled. Your efforts and, ultimately, the good faith of all the parties here demonstrated Wikipedia consensus-building and compromise at its best, allowing us to address an issue addressed by other encyclopedias. If the editors on this issue here could find consensus then by God I think anyone can. Dweller, I can't say enough about how you handled all of us &mdash; as well as any professional counselor or mediator.


 * My impression was that the talk-page RfC had reached an impasse among the last few editors who had active opinions on the subject, and that this mediation is an extension of that RfC -- that this page and the talk-page part of it will all be part of a single archived discussion that has reached conclusion. Dweller has mediate before and has experience in these things, so I'll bow to his judgment on how to proceed: by considering this a conclusion to the RfC or essentially re-opening the issue, though perhaps with the authority of an admin mediation attached to this solution.


 * Again, my heartiest congratulations and best wishes to all of us who have worked so hard on this for so much time. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
Catching up now, after the weekend. You've done brilliantly. I personally think it'd be best if you decided together how to take it forward and I kept out of it. All the hard work has been done by you - I did very little, just helped create a place you could talk without tempers getting badly frayed. If I can be of further assistance, please do ask. --Dweller (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I dunno, guys. My gut instinct is to implore Dweller to help with implementation. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I can see this whole thing unraveling. How do the rest of us suggest we handle this? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Take the new wording to the talk page and present it as a compromise solution. Give it a week for others to comment and then implement it if there is still a majority agreement. Sure a whole lot of new editors could arrive and this could begin again, but it is not really up to us here to decide for everyone. If we limit our responses to any additional comments it should avoid the WP:TLDR and repetitive nature of the earlier discussion. It may be worth pinging past contributors on their talk page as many may not be watching the page anymore. AIR corn (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okey-doke. Presuming Stuart's in agreement, I'll go along with that. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope
I've no idea why anyone thinks that this private discussion between two or three individuals, mediated by another, is actually an appropriate way to decide article content. While I appreciate Dweller's patience, this has nothing much to do with 'compromise', except to the individuals concerned - none of which have any more right to debate article content than anyone else. The correct place to discuss such issues is the article talk page. The 'compromise' arrived at seems to me in any case to be misleading, in that it suggests that Demi herself is the only source that has stated she was born 'Demi' - this is demonstrably untrue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. This is nothing more than a compromise between me, Tenebrae and Stuart. It should be on the talk page now and needs to be accepted there before anything is added to the article. At one point Speaking to Bang Showbiz in 2010, Demi clarified "My mother named me Demi - which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up." was added to the end of the footnote, but it ended up being swapped for a second tweet. From the discussion Stuart wanted it included, Tenebrae didn't, and I didn't care either way. AIR corn (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Bang Showbiz cite, aside from being anonymous and possibly plagiarized, also opens up another can of worms, since we also have another quote in which she claims it was her father who named her from a magazine source ("Demi Moore" [press notes biography]. No Small Affair. Columbia Pictures. 1984), and she's also told Vanity Fair, "I don't know if it was the name of a hair product or a makeup." (Collins, Nancy. (August 1991) "Demi's Big Moment." Vanity Fair) --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Count me as a support of the compromise. Any compromise. No, it's not perfect, but after these two months of wrangling over a footnote, there is much to be said for the proposal that any one objecting be dipped in molasses and thrown into a vat of african honeybees. --GRuban (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln Center Library research
I only had a couple of hours, and the initial two files I had time to access did not include her Rolling Stone cover story, her Dec. 1990 Cosmopolitan interview, or any issues of People, but there were a couple of Vanity Fair articles, Us Weekly, The New Yorker, early movie press kits/bios, and much more.

Her own story of how she got her name is inconsistent:
 * "Virgina Guynes found a name for her daughter 'in a beauty magazine,' says Moore. 'I don't know if it was the name of a hair product or a makeup.'" — Collins, Nancy. (August 1991) "Demi's Big Moment." Vanity Fair


 * "'My father was a nervous wreck the day I was born and he spotted the name in a beauty magazine.'" — "Demi Moore" (press notes biography). No Small Affair. Columbia Pictures. 1984.

I had to work later than I'd planned tonight &mdash; had to write an obit for the Irish actor David Kelly &mdash; but Moore has been inconsistent about her age when she posed for Oui; about when her family moved to Los Angeles; about how many times her family moved when she was young, and other things, including once claiming she'd graduated high school. The New York Daily News caught her lying about not doing an interior pictorial for Oui ("Moore Ways Than One" by Alan Carter, March 31, 1988 p. 51) and Us asked her why she lied on the marriage license for her marriage to Bruce Willis. ("Why did you say on the license that this was your first marriage?" "I did it because I thought it was going to take longer if I put that on there." — "The Us Interview: Demi Moore" by Cyndi Stiver, Us, May 16, 1988, p. 16.) She once claimed that the 17-year-old apartment-building neighbor whom she frequently said inspired her to become an actress was Nastassia Kinski, but she's since backed away from that claim.

I also found a lot of good research on her family background: just bread-and-butter, normal biographical stuff, nothing controversial. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view, SmokeyJoe
Support the point that multiple reputable sources have used the name Demetria. As reputable secondary sources have used this name, Wikipedia should cover it too.

Moore's twitter denial is a reliable source that Moore denies Demetria. It is not reliable for whether Demetria is her given name. If Demetria is to be mentions, Moore's denial is easily interesting enough to be mentioned. We should take care to not take sides. There could be reasons why Moore's denial might be incorrect, but we should be uninterested in such things because there is no reputable coverage of such things by others.

"Although disputed by Moore,[2] many sources give her birth name as Demetria or Demitria.[3][4][5][6]" reads very well to me. I think its inclusion is important because it covers historic coverage of her first name. As "Demetria" has appeared in prominent publications multiple times, it deserves mention in the body of the biography, as currently. Footnotes should be reserved for tangential explanations of things that may confuse.

I think "many" beats "most" unless a reliable source defines and reliably demonstrates "most". "Most" is a precise quantifying term that is out of place for this issue.

I think this sentence is superior to any of the four options given by Aircorn, wherever placed.

"Lincoln Center Library research" then reinforces my impression that "Demetria" was her original given name. "Demi" not is "the name of a hair product or a makeup". I guess that Moores recent denial reflects the fact that Demi uses the name "Demi" and does not use the name "Demetria". Her name (now) is just "Demi".

(In contrast, "Her parents were alcoholics who often fought and beat each other." reads crudely. Unsourced,  Generalised.)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)