Talk:Roy Moore

Incorrect information on high school attended

Roy Moore attended Emma Sansom High School, Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, in the ninth grade. He transferred to Etowah High School (Etowah County) for the remaining three years of his high school education. He later returned to Emma Sansom High School and was the guest speaker at the high school's annual Veterans Day Program, which I was the co-sponsor for twenty+ years. In fact, Roy and I were in the same ninth grade Civics Class taught by Miss Lera Grady. I selected Roy to speak at our Veterans Day Program because he was a West Point Graduate and a veteran of the VietNam Conflict. It I were selecting a speaker for this year's school program, it would not be Roy Moore because of his extreme believes and negative views against various sectors of our population. Thank you, Richard D. Wright Emma Sansom High School Class of 1965 Gadsden City Schools Retired Teacher 1973-2006

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017 - Removal of using "far-right" to compartmentalize what is claimed to be his politics

The following paragraph should be corrected to be relevant only to the facts. "Far-right" references should be removed as this is not fact. It is part of a larger and false compartmentalization of what is said to be the political "right" (which also applies differently in different countries and regions other than the USA) and is meant (in the USA) to be associated/synonymous with the Republican agenda, certain to suit the narrative of those opposed to the Republican agenda. Even though the terms "left" and "right" are used by many, what is associated to whom with respect to these terms (and the "spectrum") has always been highly debated. As such, this is yet another reference in many articles that should be corrected.

Moore is an advocate of far-right politics.[7][8][9] He earned significant national attention and controversy over his strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim, and far-right views, his belief that Christianity should order public policy,[10][11] as well as his past ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups.[12][13][14][15][16]

The paragraph can simply be stated in the following manner:

He earned significant national attention and controversy over his anti-homosexual and anti-Muslim views, his belief that Christianity should order public policy,[10][11] as well as his past alleged ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups.[12][13][14][15][16] 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done -- please make an edit request only once there is consensus for your proposed edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And how was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus? I don't think so. The references in that first sentence do not apply, as there is never a definition of "far-right" that is in anyway non-contradictory and therefore does not need to be used here. The paragraph professes what it professes just fine without trying to lazily associate "right" or "far-right" (as what happens with usage of "left" and "right").— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.122 (talk • contribs) 20:19, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is in the references. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps the references should be removed per WP:NPOV. Far-right is an opinion, not a fact, and has no place in Wikipedia articles any more than far-left does. Txantimedia (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is a fact, according to our sources. The Atlantic calls it hard right, but the meaning is still the same. - MrX 01:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is an opinion of those sources. It would be the same as reporting a story where a man killed a bunch of people and reporting that he was crazy. Without the qualified diagnosis of a psychiatrist, the appellation is an opinion. I don't think it's correct to claim that simply because an RS expresses an opinion, it therefore became a fact. Txantimedia (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RS are not opining that he is far-right. They're describing him as far-right. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Your comment is correct. And as far as we know, Moore is proud to be characterized by mainstream authorities -- and Wikipedia -- as "far-right". (Just don't say "neoconservative"; he's not a neo-conservative.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: No, your comment is a logical fallacy and is circular. "They're describing him as far-right" does not define what the "far-right" actually is, as such it's a compartment used for opinions from some people's superego's who perceive what they want to perceive the "right"/"far right" to be, same can be said with the "left", but we are talking about this case here. What is attributed to being "right" and "left" are opinions, and have become quite inaccurate and contradictory over the decades.

@MrX: As Txantimedia had stated in responses above, the references are OPINIONS and attempts by those writers/editors, in my opinion, to trivialize, marginalize and then compartmentalize into a bucket of "far-right". It is NOT a fact by any standards. The New York Times had an op-ed on Charles Manson (who had died in jail recently) and how he apparently began the "alt-right" (whatever the heck that is, same questions as what is the "right"/"left"/"far-whatever", no one knows, history then becomes revised to suit political agendas and all is obfuscated for the next generation to further such ignorance of the subject). Totally ridiculous to cite that op-ed, but from those who defend the references citing "far-right" this would be ok. The person who wrote the op-ed clearly has no ground in history, for that matter. Would also it be ok to cite the recent Newsweek article comparing Charles Manson and President Trump (their manner of speaking to their "followers")? This can be interpreted to be totally bigoted, as it is clearly leaving out other obvious comparisons, such as President Obama and his speaking to his "followers". A lazy, biased article, yet someone could cite it and say it's a fact "according to our sources".

The overall point here is that the edit of that paragraph in question serves the same information and purpose, without trying to compartmentalize Roy Moore's views into something that is perceived with such inaccuracy and sometimes intent to slander/libel groups of people perceived to be in those compartments. The world isn't like that. History should not be revised, and neither should the history of political parties in the USA. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

---

I have been threatened to be blocked by Nomoskedasticity who wrote: "Keep this up and you'll end up blocked." , why? It is because Answer=yes was toggled to 'no'? Now, this might be my own misunderstanding of what "answered=" actually refers to (is it simply because ONE person replied, in this case Nomoskedasticity, I don't see why that means it's answered, but if that's the technicality used...)

Anyway, The original reason given for the toggle back to 'yes' was "This isn't going to be implemented without consensus". I responded by replying, "And how was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus?"

My response stands on it's own. "Far-right" is not a factual term and does NOT have a consensus. It seems quite prudent and fair to simply make the proposed edit, removing those particular terms and leaving the rest for others to view and review. Using "far-right" only serves to obfuscate ideologies and perpetuate the ignorance that exists around using that term. Did those sources define or point to a source of what "far-right" is? No. And I highly doubt they would be able to discern what is "right" and "left" in the first place. Just look at the Wiki for these topics and maybe you'll see. That is, if you can discern what is and isn't. Otherwise, you do not have any expertise in this matter and should leave it to others to form a consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.122 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Sorry, but you don’t appear to be listening to the responses. He is described as far-right by reliable sources. Your comparison to using an op-ed is not on point as op-ed’s are opinions. What we believe are also opinions. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Claiming someone is "far-right", even in a news article is editorializing. The meaning of far-right is subject to the biases of the reader. For example, the German Nazi party is often labeled "far-right" in articles. Yet the Nazi party was a socialist party. If anything, they should be labeled "far-left", but the point is, calling anyone far this or far that is labeling and editorializing and has no place in an article that is supposed to be neutral. This slavish devotion to using labels assigned by RS is nothing more than an excuse to conceal bias. The bias of news sources is often quite obvious, and no news source is free of bias. Nor are they free of error. C.f. NBC's report on the Pinto's expoding gas tank for a blatant example. IMNSHO, ALL labels, far-right, far-left, etc., should be removed from articles, and the subjects of the article should be labeled, if we must insist on labeling people, by their party membership, but even that is so imprecise as to be meaningless.

I have no problem with prose that states, Subject has taken positions that are often called far-right. But stating that Subject is far-right (or far left) is labeling and indicates a POV rather than NPOV. Txantimedia (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• It really doesn't matter if the toggle is switched to yes or no -- no-one is going to implement the edit request when it's plain that there is no consensus for the requested edit. The policy on edit requests is clear in this regard: if a requested edit is disputed, the template is to be used when the dispute has been resolved and consensus has been reached. You may now return to your regularly scheduled bickering. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry O3000, but you don't appear to be listening to my response. These RS are opining within their articles. These sources DO NOT define what "far-right" is, they DO NOT refer to another source as to what it is. It should be clear that "far-right" (and the whole spectrum of "left" to "right") is a compartmentalization of what people perceive to be an ideology, that they would obviously then try to relate to the "right" (yet, another compartmentalization of things perceived to be related to whatever they want it to be).

To both O3000 and Nomoskedasticity, I asked a simple question: How was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus? You did not answer that, NO ONE did and here we are arguing in circular fashion because of it. How is it that there is so much editing by so many others (aside from grammar or structure-based) going on in this article that is semi-protected, where were those consensuses made? Are we talking about consensus that can be within talk pages?

So, how did "far-right" get there in the first place? As my proposal shows, it's totally unnecessary and as I've mentioned here, the term has no grounds and really needs to be removed until it's defined WITH A CONSENSUS.

The first RS is from the "Journal Gazette" and the ONLY instance of using the term "far right" is in the headline, probably to editorialize and get attention (further enabling the ignorance of "right" and "left" comprises of). That's it. That's all folks. So, obviously we can take that amazing RS out as a reference.

The second RS is from "The Atlantic", and they use a term that they called "hard-right". Gee, what is this? It's not "far-right", is there something farther?? Not defined. No clarity as to what they are talking about. Why? Because they don't care and don't know and gee, this can be used as a reference to support a compartment of ignorance that supports the super-ego of partisans (one can only assume)...why is it a reference?

The third RELIABLE SOURCE, as it is called here (by now this has become almost laughable, if these instances were not so seriously pervasive across the wiki community) is from the "Boston Globe", and as in the first RS, this also has one instance of the term "far-right" used in the headline. The headline, that's it.

Now, let's think about what we've seen in headlines and how they are used as editorialize and push opinions into articles from news outlets that were certainly more reliable in past decades than they are now.

All three RS references are totally invalid and do not serve any purpose other than to perpetuate this ignorance of "left" and "right", in this case "far-right". Remove them please, as my proposal suggests a fair solution.

Thank you to the editors/moderators that ARE listening to this. Again, this is not about Roy Moore, it is all about trivializing, marginalizing and then compartmentalizing perceptions of ideologies and viewpoints. Media outlets love nothing more than to have things fit their narrative (and their own super-ego's/world-view) in a THIS and THAT/US and THEM/BLACK and WHITE style. As such, objective journalism has bent greatly to suit the desires of the editors and perhaps the readers desires, to some degree). To those who mock/jest about "regularly scheduled bickering", it's quite sad to see that tone among those who (somehow) have editing admin authority. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that describe Moore's views (or him) as far-right: [1][2][3][4]. Roy Moore has marginalized himself with his extreme views on many matters, so I'm comfortable leaving the text as it is.- MrX 18:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX:I have no doubt you are comfortable with it, because it satisfies your bias. For example, you call his views "extreme". His views are extreme to you, but to others they are not extreme at all. In fact, they are the correct views to have. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include either of these views. They are supposed to be neutral. Just as RS are supposed to be neutral (but obviously are not.) As Special:Contributions/149.101.1.122 has (rightly) pointed out, those views have no place in a Wikipedia article that is supposed to be neutral, and as I have pointed out, no RS is without bias. Using the excuse that RS said thus and so therefore it's acceptable in an article, is a cop-out. It's a subtle way to introduce bias into an article without being called on it. As Special:Contributions/149.101.1.122 has also pointed out, the bias was introduced into the article without discussion and without consensus. The proper thing to do, then, is to remove it until consensus can be reached. Txantimedia (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Let's scrutinize the "plenty of other sources". For example, your first reference is to a Guardian article that includes the appellation thus: The Alabama candidate was already a controversial figure, holding strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim and far-Right views. Clearly, the and far-Right views is superfluous and introduces bias. Moore's views are described as anti-homosexual and anti-Muslim (although i would dispute even those descriptions as introducing bias), but the "far-Right views" is appended to push the description even farther toward the "extreme" end of the scale. Terms such as these are routinely thrown around in an effort to marginalize the views of individuals whose views are considered outliers by the author of the article or his/her editor. Your second source is CNN, which has been repeatedly exposed for its bias against conservatives, and the wording is in the headline, not the article. Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal. Your third source is WaPo. First of all, it's behind a paywall. Secondly, WaPo has a vested interest in promoting their original story regarding Moore. The wording is The movement toward Moore has contradicted conventional wisdom about his surprise win. As he marched toward victory in last month’s Republican primary, many GOP strategists warned that the far-right Moore would become an embarrassment to the party, much as former then-congressman Todd Akin became an albatross after his 2012 Senate nomination in Missouri.. Your fourth sources is The Daily Beast, an outfit known to have a bias. Their statement is As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate.

Note that in all these instances, the sense of the statement is not changed by removing the appellation. For example, As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the Republican candidate. is no different than As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate. with the one exception that far-right introduces a bias into the sentence. Remove far-right from the other three, and the sentences still convey factual information regarding Moore and his views.

It is my considered view that all adjectives describing BLP should be removed for introducing bias. Take, for example, the CNN article introduces several biases by the use of adjectives (highlighted in red) {tq|Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal.}} Txantimedia (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia uses reliable sources. We are not going to ignore WP policies to fit your opinions. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You are not being asked to ignore WP policies. You are being asked to use them with wisdom. If an RS reported the moon was made of green cheese, should that go into an article simply because it's RS? The answer should be obvious. Articles are supposed to use RS AND be neutral. Txantimedia (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A source that would say the moon was made of green cheese wouldn’t be considered an RS by WP. Interesting that you should use the word "appellation" above considering your user name here. With this name, you announce your bias in every edit. In any case, my last comment in this thread. O3000 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@O3000:Last comment for you is fine with me. Your username is "Objective3000" so, let's not call out other's when clearly you have had little substance to add to this section. You should strive to be objective (as an editor?) in arguing topics such as this. Txantimedia is absolutely correct in that just because something is deemed to be a RS, every word and description is to be the truth or a source for articles. My goodness, imagine the world we'd live in (or do we live here already? Where 85-90% of ALL media outlets are of similar bias and 15-10% are of another similar bias, there is NO neutral RS.).

• Anyone who is struggling with the question of whether to use sources like the Washington Post, CNN, the Boston Globe, and the Guardian is invited to raise their concerns at RSN. Obviously enough, I think it's a waste of time -- but there are plenty of editors active on this article who have no difficulty with the idea that these are high-quality sources easily satisfying WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: Your personal views that I am biased, or that our sources are biased, are not advancing this discussion, so unless you have new arguments based on our content policies, I'm going to stop participating here. You're welcome to ask for the sources to be reviewed at WP:RSN if you like.- MrX 20:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not struggling with whether the sources are RS. They are. But even RS can be biased, particularly in the area of politics. I am arguing that the use of the term far-right, in a Wikipedia article, is not justified merely by the fact that RS used it. As I posted below, the use of the term should fit within its use in Wikipedia. IMO, it does not. Furthermore, the question has been repeatedly asked and never answered - how did the term get inserted without any discussion or consensus? Txantimedia (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You read what I wrote above, and then decided to paste more articles that do not source/ref or even remotely explain what they are describing as "far-right". The subject has "marginalized himself with his extreme views on many matters" is quite the opinion of yours as well. Not fact, not based on anything of substance. And now we must waste time with 4 more "sources" that you googled up. I'm surprised "Media Matters" isn't one of them, as THAT source is somehow used as a RS in Wiki articles; where one should not use the Media Matters source, but rather locate the actual, unedited ref/source that MM was using in their article to discover if it's even usable as a ref/source. Just because a term is in something that is published does not make it valid. I invite you to unpeel this onion and you shall see there are lessons to be learned here. Help advance the discussion, but understand that RS does NOT mean every word and description that an RS uses is with full objectivity. If you don't understand this, the premise to discuss is broken.

There have been studies in the past, but here is a recent Harvard study on many RS (not even a drop in the bucket, but as we can see...), with respect to current politics. The media landscape is quite tilted and therefore people's idea of what is a RS or "neutral" is as well. To assume it's a RS so anything quoted is fine and indisputable because it's simply an RS in the first place. That is absolutely ridiculous and appalling, just beyond the pale of what I'd expect from the ideal wiki editor.

Back to the four new "sources" that supposedly support perpetuating the use of "far-right":

1 - The Telegraph, a UK publication, had one line with the term: "The Alabama candidate was already a controversial figure, holding strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim and far-Right views." As you can see, it's basically the same sentence in the questionable paragraph this section was initially about. Just throw in "far-right" and yeah, gee we all agree. Wrong. What does it mean? We don't know what the UK telegraph means (in Europe this term is associated with Nazism, for one, and is partly the reason why people here in the USA are confused and annoyed by it's usage).

2 - The money.cnn blog post/article simply throws the term into ONE place: "Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal." Any editor in any publication can just say "let's throw in "far-right" here". It still doesn't support what the term is referring to and justify it's usage. Steve Bannon is referred to as "alt-right" (another what-in-the-world-are-you-talking-about term) that is apparently not "far-right" or is it? What is that? Who first sourced it? What did they use to do so?

3 - Washington Post reference you cite is from a blog they have called "Power Post" regarding the sentiments of Senator Jeff Flake on Senate-candidate Roy Moore. It states "far-right" once, here: "As he marched toward victory in last month’s Republican primary, many GOP strategists warned that the far-right Moore would become an embarrassment to the party, much as former then-congressman Todd Akin became an albatross after his 2012 Senate nomination in Missouri." So, once again, the writer of the blog post or the editorial staff decided to throw in "far-right" for good measure to qualify (whatever) and associate him and the GOP together in some internal struggle of "far-right" and GOP (where the party is misconstrued and tossed into the that vast compartment of "right"/"right-wing", apparently also containing vague lines of where "alt-right" and "far-right" and "hard-right" and "extreme-right" begin and end). What does the WaPo suggest "far-right" is? Is it the same as the Wall Street Journal? The NYT, LAT? BBC, Telegraph? German publications? No it's not. It has NO clear boundaries and no definition that has any consensus. Is it related to Todd Akin? I don't see anyone calling him "far-right" in his own wiki article, gee maybe we can ref this WaPo article for Todd Akin to be associated with "far-right" (sarcasm folks).

4 - The Daily Beast reference states: "As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate." Again, no idea what that means to them and it might be very different for people who read it because of lack of definition, no consensus.

I keep asking, what was the consensus for originally putting in that term into this article? What is the reason for it to be used (and any of its sibling terms) into this or any wiki article? Define it, get a consensus first, then those terms could be used. Otherwise, remove it please.149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Follow-up: It seems that Txantimedia has been reiterating my points and vice-versa (therefore, sorry for being redundant to the rest of the community reading this), I guess we're forming a consensus. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Sources don't need to explain terms that are commonly understood. I can't help but notice that these arguments are very, very similar to the tendentious arguments made by Técnico (talk · contribs) and a a bunch of socks and SPAs at talk:Breitbart News. They are no more convincing here than they were there.- MrX 21:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait. User:MrX and others - can someone explain to me why an account from the US Department of Justice is making edits to this article? Especially if this account is using multiple account to sock puppet (which may or may not be true - let me look into this)???  Volunteer Marek  03:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't explain it. I guess it's my tax dollars hard at work.- MrX 12:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

...this may help:

"Since partisan political activity in the workplace is prohibited by the Hatch Act, employees may not use the Internet or any other government equipment to engage in partisan political activities."

- MrX 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Not commonly understood. That's the problem. That's what I was stressing in my responses, there is NO consensus on what these terms are. I don't know who that user is and whatever the Breitbart News talk article had to say. It's irrelevant as you can clearly read what I have written above. What are you implying? A conspiracy? Would you care to try defining "far-right" and "far-left" is for us all then? Or based on a DEFINITION from a RS? If not, the term has to go and I agree with Txantimedia that all sibling terms would also be removed from articles. This helps clarify and reduces obfuscation and compartmentalization which is used to trivialize narratives in politics (in this case).149.101.1.122 (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's approach this from a different angle. The word far-right is used three times in the article. One use, is IMO, a violation of Wikiepedia policy. In the fourth paragraph of the summary, this sentence appears. Moore is an advocate of far-right politics. The justification for it is cites to three articles; an Indiana news organization, the Atlantic and the Boston Globe. The Indiana article is an AP reprint and uses the term in the headline. The Atlantic article doesn't use the term at all. The Boston Globe article is an AP reprint and uses the term in the headline. Headlines are not news. They are designed to attract readers through sensational claims.

The second use is in a subsection with one sentence, labeled Columnist, Moore wrote weekly columns for the far-right website WorldNetDaily from 2006 to 2009.[109][110. This labels WND as far-right. Has anyone ever labeled the New York Times as far-left? I kind of doubt it, but their history could justify its use.

The third use is in a subsection labeled Political Positions. I have no problem with that one, because it's directly quoting the cited article. According to Business Insider, Moore has a "history of far-right and conspiracy-aligned positions" on issues such as homosexuality, race, Islam, and terrorism.[166]

This raises questions for me.

• Is it policy for news organizations to be labeled left or right or far-left or far-right?
• Is it policy for individuals to be labeled this way?
• If things are going to be labeled far-right, should they not at least partly fit within Wikipedia's own definition of far-right? Category:Far-right politics in the United States

I don't see where Moore fits into any of those categories. The closest one is Dominion theology, but I don't think Moore has ever advocated imposing Christianity on US citizens through governmental power.

My position would be that the far-right label should be removed from the first and second instance and retained in the third. Txantimedia (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is policy to described news organizations as they are described in reliable sources.
• It is policy to describe inividuals' political beliefs or stances as they are described in reliable sources.
• Interpreting what is and what isn't far right isn't up to editors, it's up to reliable sources.

 Volunteer Marek  03:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to post links to those policies? I have been unable to find them using your wording. Txantimedia (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I searched for Roy Moore is an advocate of far-right politics on the internet. I can't even find the phrase at clearly biased sites such as Right Wing Watch. Searching for Far-right/far right Roy Moore leads me to tons of headlines, but very few articles that make this claim about Moore. Therefore, I think it would be best if the sentence in the fourth paragraph was changed as follows.

Current

Moore is an advocate of far-right politics

Proposed

Vox states that Moore is "a judge whose political beliefs were once relegated to the far-right fringe of conservatism in Alabama."

The cite would be

References

Unless someone objects, I'm going to make this change. Txantimedia (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you used quotes in those searches as there exist plenty of RS that use far-right to describe Moore. O3000 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please cite the "plenty". Headlines don't count. Cite an article, from RS that uses the term far-right or far right to label Moore. The problem I have is not with the label. It's with the direct statement of the article author. That's why I'm proposing quoting s source instead. Txantimedia (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Refs have been supplied before. But, here's a quick look: BBC:[5], LATimes [6], AP via Boston Globe [7], Washington Post PowerPost [8], AL [9]. And of course I object for all the reasons stated. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I object.- MrX 21:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind stating your reason(s)? Txantimedia (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the current text represents the broad selection of highly reputable sources. It meets WP:DUEWEIGHT and is an accurate summary of the Moore's political positions and activities detailed throughout the article. The text that you proposed attempts to narrowly attribute the idea that Moore's political views are far-right to a single quote in a minor publication. It would mislead readers in believing it's a minor (or even fringe) viewpoint.- MrX 21:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That can be easily overcome by providing additional or alternate cites. Some (but not all) of the cites Objective3000 proffered could be used either in addition to or as a replacement for the Vox cite. My concern is that the statement, as currently worded, puts Wikipedia in the position of taking a stance on a political matter, which it should not do. Per WP:NPOV Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. I certainly think that is the case here, and the article would be better served by putting the words "far right" into the mouth of a source, rather than having Wikipedia state it as fact. Txantimedia (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We are not saying he’s the “best” or “most”. We are just identifying his general political category, as we do with most politicians. O3000 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a biased statement of opinion, no matter how many times you repeat that. This article is replete with examples that any reasonable person of modest intelligence would classify as far-right in the context of 21st century American politics and culture. For example, his wish that homosexuality were illegal is patently far-right. His call for banning Muslims from serving in Congress is far-right. His theocratic bent is far-right. By definition, far-right is the part of the political spectrum that is the most conservative. I think it's safe to say that, among Senators or recent major party Senate candidates, Moore is more conservative than at least 99% of contenders.- MrX 23:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegations - revision proposal

The section 'Sexual abuse allegations' has fairly detailed accounts of the alleged behavior, including that Corfman's mother's account. However, there is nothing about reactions, especially by members of the Republican party. This section should look more like the lead of Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations.

I suggest a rewrite. Something like

Current version

During Moore's election campaign for the Senate, three women described a sexual assault by Moore when they were aged 14 to 28,[5] and several others described him pursuing a romantic relationship with them when they were as young as 16, while he was in his 30s.[7][111] While denying the sexual assault allegations,[5] he did not dispute his having approached or dating teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama).[112][6] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[7][6][8]

One of those three women was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32, after Moore had introduced himself to her and her mother outside the courthouse where he worked. In the Washington Post report, Corfman's mother confirmed the initial meeting with Moore, and Corfman's friends recalled her talking about Moore's sexual abuse.[7] In response, Moore said he had "never known" Corfman and "never had any contact with her".[113]

Another of those three women was Beverly Young Nelson who said she had received unwanted attention from Moore when she was 15 years old, and said that, in December 1977 or January 1978[114] when she was 16, Moore sexually assaulted her. She said that when she fought him off, he eventually gave up, but told her, "You're just a child, I'm the district attorney. If you tell anyone about this no one will ever believe you."[115][116] Moore denied Nelson's accusations saying they're "absolutely false", and "I don't even know the woman."[117]

The third of those three women was Tina Johnson who alleged that when she was 28 in 1991, she had visited Moore (now married) in his law office for a legal matter. She said Moore flirted with her, asked questions about her young daughters, which made her uncomfortable, and finally he "grabbed" her buttocks as she left.[118]

A total of nine women have accused Moore of inappropriate sexual or social conduct.

Proposed version

During Moore's Senate election campaign, nine women accused Moore of inappropriate sexual or social conduct, including three who described a sexual assault by Moore when one was as young as 14. Several others described him pursuing a romantic relationship with them when they were as young as 16, while he was in his 30s. Moore denied the sexual assault allegations, but did not dispute dating teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama).

Leigh Corfman said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32. Moore denied knowing or having contact with Corfman, although her mother confirmed confirmed their meeting.

Beverly Young Nelson said that, in December 1977 or January 1978 when she was 16, Moore sexually assaulted her. She said that when she fought him off, he eventually gave up, telling her, "You're just a child, I'm the district attorney. If you tell anyone about this no one will ever believe you." Moore denied Nelson's accusations and that he even knew her at all.

Tina Johnson alleged that when she was 28 in 1991, she had visited Moore in his law office for a legal matter. She said Moore flirted with her, asked questions about her young daughters, and grabbed her buttocks as she left.

Prominent Republicans such as John McCain and Mitt Romney called for Moore to drop out of the race after the allegations were reported. Other Senators withdrew their endorsements of Moore's Senate candidacy. Days later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believes the women who made the accusations and that Moore should "step aside". Speaker of the House Paul Ryan also called for Moore to abandon his campaign. President Donald Trump, however, expressed support for Moore. Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore from the accusations.
— (Last paragraph contains content copied from Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations)

Please share your thoughts on this proposed change.- MrX 12:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Since there are nine (actually I believe the number is higher now) woman - we don't need to describe three of them for no reason. Also remember that when copying text from another article it needs to be attributed (an edit summary of "copied from xyz, see there for attribution"). Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The current version clearly explains why three particular women are being described in detail and it’s because they made the most shocking allegations. That seems apt to me. So I favor the current version. But adding a sentence about reactions would be fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter, yes I forgot the attribution. I have added it above.- MrX 15:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely an improvement, the first version needed a copyedit, and the reactions was missing. zzz (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• See, however, WP:EDITORIALIZING. "Words used to link two statements such as ... however ... may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about President Donald Trump, however, expressed support for Moore.? The source has "President Trump broke with leading Republicans on Tuesday" and "But Mr. Trump set aside those concerns" after a paragraph describing McConnell's and Ryan's opposition (like we have). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added the reactions paragraph. I don't have a strong view about 'however'. I don't think it is necessarily editorializing and it does make the writing slightly more interesting, but it's not essential.- MrX 21:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement, except that I would delete the phrase "when one was as young as 14". It doesn't belong in that sentence. Three women didn't describe that; only one of them did, and her age is detailed in the paragraph about her. The point is that out of the various women who have come forward to say that he came on to them or asked them for a date or made what they felt were inappropriate advances, three actually accused him of some form of sexual assault - and those are the three where we need to get specific about what they said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and a nit-pick: don't say "over the age of 16," which would mean at least 17. Say "age 16 or over" or "at least 16" or something equivalent. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Can we revive this discussion? The article still has that clunky construction ("One of those three women... Another of those three women") and I would like to see it replaced by something more readable such as your proposed rewrite. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The intro paragraph describes a group of nine, then a sub-group of three. Then the later paragraphs start talking about specific women. However it’s phrased, it should remain clear that the later paragraphs are not talking about additional women, but rather the women in the sub-group of three. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be enough support to replace the text, similar to what I have proposed. I won't have time to do a proper job of it myself for a least a day or two. - MrX 00:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

In your version, it is unclear that the later paragraphs are not talking about additional women, rather than talking about the women described in the first paragraph as the sub-group of three. Your version seems highly objectionable for that reason. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The first paragraph establishes that there were three women who were sexually assaulted, including a 14 year old. Then the subsequent three paragraphs detail the three sexual assaults, including one involving a 14 year old. I give our readers credit for having basic reading comprehension and deductive reasoning abilities. Your suggestion might be more appropriate for SIMPLE:Roy Moore.- MrX 00:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

My basic reading comprehension and deductive reasoning abilities lead me to see that the first paragraph establishes that there were three women who were sexually assaulted plus six more women who made accusations. If the rest of the paragraphs detail the former, and not the latter, and not additional women, then say so. Writing clearly is not that hard, and one way to do it would be to name the three women in the first paragraph as the ones who were allegedly assaulted, then refer to them by last name only in the next paragraphs. It’s not rocket science. Or we could keep doing it the way we’re doing it (saying each one is one of “those three”) Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This sentence makes it sound like Moore assaulted Corfman outside the courthouse: One of the three women accusing Moore of assault was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32, after Moore had introduced himself to her and her mother outside the courthouse where he worked.

Perhaps reword it like this: One of the three women accusing Moore of assault was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32. Moore had introduced himself to her and her mother outside the courthouse where he worked. According to Corfman, he later took her to his house, where he assaulted her.

Questioning neutrality/BLP violations

• The claim by Beverly Young Nelson should not be allowed to stand as if her statements are facts. This woman's claims seem specious and in some instances outright lies. Her allegations need to be balanced with what other reliable sources have discovered about her.

For example, she claimed she was in Moore's car behind the restaurant where she worked. She claims she tried to get out of the car but he locked the doors. There were no automatic door locks controlled by the driver in 1977. When this was pointed out she then said he reached over and locked her door. But of course, she could have still opened her door and left on her own.

The signature in her yearbook looks fake and was obviously taken from her divorce papers. She claims the D.A. after the name stood for "District Attorney," but Moore was an assistant district attorney and Debra Adams was not his clerk, as she was when she stamped Young-Nelson's divorce papers and added her initials to verify the stamp in 1999. Not 1977 as Young-Nelson would have us believe.

She has refused to allow any forensic examination of her yearbook.

• Her stepson has called her a liar and her boyfriend at the time said she never told him anything about Roy Moore and he never remembered her having any waitress job anywhere. He does say she was dating someone else at the time while she was dating him, and that she eventually married that boyfriend.

• There are no listings for the campaigns Moore won as a Democrat.

• When he went to West Point he was recommended and accepted from the recommendation of his Democrat congressman. There was no need to then claim that the Republican who followed the Democrat in office needed to confirm anything. The desire to constantly wrap him as a Republican seems an attempt to erase the fact that he started out as a Democrat.

• There is far too much reliance on The New Yorker article. There are other sources that are less biased than The New Yorker which reads like a hit piece. Any claims made must come from multiple reliable sources, not just one.

• The line about admitting to dating younger women seems aimed at confirming he was chasing down young girls as if he were a pedophile/predator, yet no complaints were ever documented or filed, no criminal charges were ever brought.

• As it reads now, the neutrality of this article is questionable. I appreciate that editors are working with developing information and this fellow has, to say the least, an interesting history with questionable behavior, but these allegations must be handled in as neutral a manner as possible. He's not been charged with any crimes. These claims are 40+ years old with no substantiated evidence or corroboration by eye-witness accounts.

• There are reliable sources that have questioned why it has taken 40 years for this to surface and have questioned why now and some have suggested that it was fine when he was a Democrat but not now that he's a Republican with a chance to win a U.S. Senate seat.

Not an expert, not an American, but when I read this through it does not present Wikipedia at its best, which seems to me should be the real goal here. Bodding (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This entire edit is WP:OR and a violation of WP:BLP. I suggest removal. O3000 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)}}

I base my comments on the BLP and RS policies. My comments about Beverly Young-Nelson come from sources. Bodding (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Which ones?  Volunteer Marek  02:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Volunteer Marek for asking and not being reactionary and boxing off my comments. Someone has just pointed out on my talk page that probably the sources I’ve been looking at are likely not acceptable since they are not widely reported in the MSM. But I do recall Wolf Blitzer and Katy Tur trying to get Gloria Allred to answer questions about the yearbook but she instead went on about wanting a senate hearing before releasing anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iGe0xDUkVc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRDFswFPfc

While the sources would not be welcome, nonetheless, my main contention is that the material is being presented as fact when in fact it is not fact it is an allegation, and at the very least the allegations should be coupled with Moore’s denials. Especially as there is a claim about the yearbook that Allred is refusing to allow it to undergo an independent forensic examination by Moore's side, and she cannot say her client saw him sign it. And the law in America puts the burden of proof on the accuser, not the accused. Allred is contending that Moore should prove it’s not his signature. The Wiki article should present both sides, not just one side as fact. Bodding (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

They support the fact that she didn't answer - but nothing else. Also they are not being presented as fact (though may support shortening the details here and summarizing the spinoff article more). Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Local polls show Moore leading, and even AL.com may now be trying to cover itself! "AL.com did not report that Moore had been banned from the mall." Paul Gattis, "Roy Moore Campaign Disputes Reports He Was Banned from Mall", AL.com, November 20, 2017. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually local polls are mixed and give Jones a very slight edge (so close it's not significant, it's basically a toss up) [10]. Also al.com is just reporting that Moore campaign denied him being banned from the mall. So what?  Volunteer Marek  21:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Your information is dated. Three people have now stated on the record that Moore was not banned from the mall: the former mall manager, the former Operations manager who oversaw security and an employee of the mall who was personal friends with the manager. Txantimedia (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

How Are His Political Positions "Undue?"

Can we please remove the "Undue" template from the "political positions" section of this article? Much of that section is just personal quotes from the subject. There is nothing undue about quoting an individual. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous. I don't know when the tag was added. It may have been added by editors who ludicrously claim (see above) that Moore's anti-gay views don't count as 'political positions'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Heading to a noticeboard soon

User:MrX wants the lead of this BLP to say that Moore “did not deny approaching or dating teenagers”. But Moore did deny it as to underage girls. See Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.” So I consider Mr:X to be engaged in pretty blatant POV-pushing in violation of WP:BLP. I have said multiple times already that the plain facts in this whole matter are problematic for Moore and thus do not need to be exaggerated in order to make them problematic for Moore. If we are going to propagandize, it would be better to do so where it’s actually going to make a person look very bad who would not otherwise look bad at all. Okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This page has already been on multiple noticeboards. You may want to try WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an RFC would be appropriate. Has this particular issue been to WP:BLPN? Might that noticeboard produce a reasonable result? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I don' actually care if it says "did not deny approaching or dating teenagers", but I do care about an editors using original research to replace "not underage" with "above the age of consent". I believe you are trying to alter the neutral presentation of this material by telling readers "don't worry, they we're legal. It's all good." You have inserted this material repeatedly without obtaining consensus. How about seeking consensus before adding it in again?- MrX 23:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Moore did not deny approaching or dating teenagers above the age of consent, and you have not suggested otherwise. You’ve just insisted that we truncate it to tell readers that he didn’t deny dating any teenagers at all, which is false. You agree it’s false, don’t you? If so, then perhaps you would be kind enough to remove the falsehood from the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We can probably work it out here without needing a noticeboard. This is what the lede currently says:

During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them, including one girl who was 14.[5] Moore denied the initial allegations of sexual assault,[6] but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers.[7] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]

I agree with Anything that "did not deny" is a bad way to put this. It's very negative, implying that there is something wrong or shameful about it, some kind of guilty admission. Also, "denied the initial allegations of sexual assault" is misleading because it sounds like there were later allegations of sexual assault that he did not deny. Let's rewrite this. How about something like "Moore denied the allegations of sexual assault,[6] but acknowledged that he did approach and date girls who were 16 or over.[7] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]" Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds okay except for one thing: many readers will take it as admission that he pursued young women who had turned 16 but were not yet adults, and thus that he was breaking the law. So I would merely insert “(which is the age of consent)”. I cited a boatload of sources above at Talk:Roy_Moore#Putting_sex_allegations_into_summary_style_and_age_of_consent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I had started to add that but thought I had seen it as being controversial so I dropped it. We could say "he did approach and date girls who were 16 or over - that is, who had reached the age of consent." --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"During his Senate campaign, multiple women accused Moore of pursuing age-inappropriate relationships, one of which would have violated Alabama's age-of-consent laws". I'm not entirely sure which accusations Moore has denied, so I can't suggest any content as-to-that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said above at the start of this thread, see Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, power~enwiki, but that doesn't get to the point. Only one of the relationships was legally age-inappropriate, but several of them were alleged to involve sexual assault and that is the point. Also I don't think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice that he did something illegal. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That would work Melanie. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced he was accused of sexual assault (or if he was, that those accusations were considered credible). The relationship with a 14-year old would have been sexual abuse, not assault. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That’s kind of a separate issue. “Sexual assault” is a fuzzy term because it can be used in different senses. The primary sense is often rape, but other senses include any kind of sexual touching without consent. I agree we ought to be clear about which way we’re using that term, if we use it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide if his getting physical with them amounted to sexual assault or not. The Reliable Sources are calling it sexual assault and that's what we follow. And we don't need to specify the details in the lede. That's what the article is for. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If the reliable sources make clear that when they say “sexual assault” they aren’t referring to rape then we need to make that clear too (unless our purpose is to mislead which it isn’t). Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If they meant rape they would have said rape. The terms are not synonymous. And note that we're not saying he DID it - we're just reporting that claims were made. "During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them". Accusations were made, he denies the assault and underage parts of the accusations - that is the situation we are reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

”Sexual assault” is usually seen as rape and is often defined as rape, so reliable sources use “sexual assault” to mean rape all the time without using the word “rape”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you can find Reliable Sources specifying they mean "sexual assualt but not rape" then we can add it. Personally I haven't seen any source that felt it was necessary to spell that out. And again, Reliable Sources are what we follow. Not our own opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven’t advocated for any particular change to that part of the lead yet, and if I do it will not be opinion-based, for sure. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN's original version is fine. Adding above the age of consent is not fine. It misrepresents sources by undue emphasis.- MrX 23:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one who thinks it’s undue emphasis to tell readers that if Moore dated 16-year-olds that wouldn’t have been a crime. I’ve cited gobs of sources above, and it would occupy all of three words. It would be absurd to discuss “16” in the lead without saying what the significantce of that number is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait a second. Where are we accusing him of a crime in the lead? Are you saying that we should?- MrX 00:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to power~enwiki's suggestion to say "one of which would have violated Alabama's age-of-consent laws". We don't accuse him of a crime and we shouldn't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Mr. X that it does not belong here. TBH the obsession with including it is creepy and borderline apologia for stalking teen girls. Artw (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Artw: See Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. "stalking. The [criminal] offense of following or loitering near another … to annoy or harass that person or to commit a further crime." You may want to cite your source for this allegation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:MrX, the lead currently says Moore “did not deny approaching or dating teenagers”. That falsely indicates he did not deny dating 13-year-old and 14-year olds, et cetera, and thus insinuates Moore is an admitted criminal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What? It does nothing of the sort. Volunteer Marek  00:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Moore issued a denial regarding dating underage teens and we dishonestly say he issued no denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say that?  Volunteer Marek  00:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

See the first comment in this section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean the one that DOESN'T say "dating underage teens"?  Volunteer Marek  00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hold it, User:Anythingyouwant. Here we are discussing possible wording, and you said above "I haven’t advocated for any particular change to that part of the lead yet, and if I do it will not be opinion-based, for sure." But then instead of "advocating" for a change in wording, you went ahead and added the following horrible construction: "...but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers who were not underage." Whatever we ultimately decide to say, it is bound to be better than that. I am going to revert it, and if you have a proposal for a change to this under-discussion wording, propose it here, please. Like I did. Like Wikipedians do. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You are mixing up two very different things. I have not suggested any change to the “sexual assault” language. Very obviously, I have suggested changing the WP:BLP violation regarding Moore’s denial about dating teenagers. As best as I could tell from the comments above, the people objecting to my initial proposal wanted to follow the “underage” language in the source, rather than using the equivalent “age of consent” language. So I accommodated them. And you revert without any substantive rationale at all, restoring a blatant BLP violation. Why not wait and see if anyone objects to my attempt to meet their unreasonable nitpicky demands? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop insisting that other uses changes are BLP violations when they are not, it is deeply unhelpful. This is the fifth or six time I've asked you this, so yes, per the heading maybe we are going to a noticeboard soon. Artw (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s very deeply unhelpful for you to deny that our lead contains a glaring BLP violation: saying the BLP subject did not deny behavior (criminal behavior!) when he actually did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What Artw said. As for your addition: propose your wording here, and let's discuss it. If you can come up with a less clumsy wording, maybe it will get consensus and can be added to the article. In fact, go ahead and propose your "did not deny... not underage" suggestion, in a new paragraph, and see if anyone likes it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The way I look at it, the noticeboards (outside of AN/I and AE) are valuable for problems on low activity articles. If an article enjoys the eyes of numerous experienced editors, noticeboards just add a time-wasting pause after which the problem is just sent back to talk. Present your best case here. O3000 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My two proposals

I made two proposals, both as article edits. Proposal #1 (with new language in bold) is that Moore:

did not deny approaching or dating teenagers above the age of consent.

References

That was rejected because the source speaks of “underage” rather than “age of consent”. So proposal #2 (with new language in bold) is that Moore:

did not deny approaching or dating teenagers who were not underage.

References

I won’t stop saying the truth at this talk page: that it’s a gross BLP violation for us to say Moore did not deny something that he did partly deny. Ban me if you want, but I’d say the same about Charles Manson or Mother Theresa. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why we need to say he did not deny anything in the lede. Remove the whole sentence. The double negative is too awkward for the lede. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.” We can’t include allegations in the lead while burying a denial in the article body. The two proposals I gave both imply a partial denial about dating teenage girls, and that needs to be included if the lead continues to say there were claims about dating numerous teenage girls. My proposals #1 and #2 are essentially the same, I’d prefer to avoid the double negative by using proposal #1, but proposal #2 also gets across Moore’s partial denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Then say "but denied any criminal wrongdoing" and avoid the excessive wordiness. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, in the future please make your proposals as talk page proposals - not as article edits. I don't like the "did not deny" format, for reasons I explained above, so I don't care for either of these. How about something like this: "Moore denied dating underage girls or sexually assaulting anyone, but acknowledged that he had approached and dated older teenagers." --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you like, just get rid of the current lie in the lead, and I recommend pipe linking underage. I'm off to WP:AE, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What lie? There was no any lie in the lead. The text was completely BLP consistent. Yes, it can be possibly improved as suggested by MelanieN, but this is just a slightly different wording. My very best wishes (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A note on User:DHeyward's edit and edit summary here. The source does not say "teenage women", and in fact I haven't seen a single source which used this formulation. Additionally, the edit summary is false ("He did not deny dating teenage women"). What Moore actually said was: "remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother" and "I seemed to remember her as a good girl". Hannity's pertinent question was ""Let me ask you this you do remember these girls would it be unusual for you as a 32 year old guy to have dated a woman as young as 17? That would be a 15 year difference or a girl 18. Do you remember dating girls that young at that time?" to which he replied - not denied it - "Not generally, no". Volunteer Marek  09:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

He also said that he “did not date underage girls”. Is that denial consistent with the lead as presently written? No, it is not. The BLP subject said that, and the BLP lead does not reflect that he said it. We lie. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

i would suggest

Did not deny dating teenagers over 16, the age consent in Alabama, when he was over 30 and working in the county prosecutors office.

We should include what makes this admission WP:N in the lede. Above is why this is important and relavent.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the wording, it needs to clarify he denies anything that would be criminal. He states “I do recognize the names of two of these young women: Debbie Wesson and Gloria Thacker". That seems to be the list of all the women he's admitted to dating. If he's admitted to more, then cite a source but "women" is the term he used as well as "young ladies." As it stands now, the wording is akin to saying he did not deny committing felonies, which of course he did deny anything that would be criminal. It should be reworded or immediately removed. --DHeyward (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't unless that is a key point that most sources mention (it's not). We're not his lawyer or his PR firm.- MrX 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Please self revert your edit. It's awkwardly worded, poorly formatted, and you have essentially bypassed this discussion to re-insert the very wording that is disputed. It's not a compromise and this is not the time to WP:BEBOLD. Thank you.- MrX 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Casprings. I wish more editors edited collaboratively like you do.- MrX 14:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is a key point and it's mentioned in the sources. We are also not his prosecutor or political opponent. When we are discussing what he admits or denies, it should be what he admits or denies, not roundabout wording to imply he admitted to crimes. He has only acknowledged dating two women of the myriad that have made complaints. It is not news that he dated younger women and in fact his wife was 24 when they married and he was 38. Do the math to when he was 32 to see what that means. --DHeyward (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a key point, otherwise most of the sources would highlight it in the ledes of their articles. A lot of things are "mentioned" in sources, but not everything is of central importance. Editing an encyclopedia requires editorial judgement so that articles are not overwhelmed with minutiae.

In fact, the original Washington Post article buries this information in the 39th paragraph of the article. More importantly, they mention it in the context of the criminality of molesting a 14 year old:

The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone older than 12 and younger than 15 has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail."
— The Washington Post

What editors like Anythingyouwant are trying to do is use "age of consent" to justify Moore dating 16 year olds, when in fact, the source is using it to highlight the fact that Moore would have committed sexual assault, if the allegation are true.- user talk:MrX 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Does anyone object to the following formulation? (italics are my proposed replacement for the "did not deny" sentence; the other two sentences are what is currently in the article; I am including them here for context): "During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them, including one girl who was 14.[5] Moore denied dating underage girls or sexually assaulting anyone, but acknowledged that he had sometimes approached and dated older teenagers. Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]" (I inserted "sometimes" because in his reply he said that he did "not generally" date teenagers.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I can only find two women that he's acknowledged dating. The question was "At that time in your life, let me ask you this you do remember these girls would it be unusual for you as a 32-year-old guy to have dated a woman as young as 17?" and the answer that we are basing the comment on is "Not generally, no. If did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything but I don't remember anything like that."[11]. The question bracketed the age to 17 years old. We should use the age given instead of "older teenagers" which is unnecessarily vague. The WaPo transcript provides question and answer. --DHeyward (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "older teenagers" is vague. What would people think about saying "high school girls" instead? The age range 16-17 would include high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Teenagers are from the age of 11 to the age 19. 16 and older would be older teenagers. Txantimedia (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A teenager is 13 to 19 inclusive. An 11-year-old or 12-year-old is not a teenager (no matter how much they may want to be). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"High school girls" is over-inclusive. Per our article Ninth grade, "Students are usually 14–15 years old." And that doesn't even include junior high. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: Moore denies he dated anyone younger than 17. One of his accusers says she was 16 but if we are reporting on Moore's denial, he bracketed it at 17. That's a senior in high school. Second, the only one of the 4 women that has alleged any sexual contact is the woman who said she was 14. The 3 other women said it didn't extend beyond kissing. Moore didn't even characterize them as dates but didn't dispute that language. --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're excluding Nelson here. Volunteer Marek  10:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. It would be fine to say "Two women accused Moore of sexual assault. He denied both of them." Lumping 2 sexual assaults in with multiple consensual, non-sexual dating is just not okay. I would be equally upset if two rapes were dismissed because they were lumped in with multiple consensual, non-sexual dating. --DHeyward (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It's clear, neutrally stated, and verifiable.- MrX 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Likewise. Artw (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support, obviously that’s the kind of thing I’ve been arguing for all along and am glad to see people finally endorsing it. Too bad it requires all this drama. But, we should pipe link underage, and also make sure we include a footnote that includes Moore’s denial: “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose additions. Artw (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Why? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I agree with this suggestion. I have replaced the reference with a better one and included the quote from his statement in the footnote. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The footnote is fine, but piping 'underage' to underage sex is a terrible idea. Dating≠sex.- MrX 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The controversy is not because Moore allegedly engaged in platonic dating, if indeed there is such a thing.[12] Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Certinly the accusation of sexual contact with a 14 year old is not platonic dating. But the only one of the 4 women that has alleged any sexual contact is the woman who said she was 14. That's a very serious charge and Moore denies even knowing her. The 3 other women said it didn't extend beyond kissing. Moore didn't even characterize them as dates but didn't dispute that language when used. The three women that said they were 16-18 years-old are accusing him of pursuing romantic relationships but didn't engage in sexual activity. From the WaPo None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact. Of the four women, the youngest (14) at the time was Corfman, who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. She says they did not have intercourse.[13]. Unless there's something else, he is denying any contact with Corfman and denying he dated underage girls. In this case, "dating" means dating, not sexual contact which has not been alleged by the 3 "older teenagers." --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to settle this with a couple well-crafted sentences. ~Awilley (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think the best wording would be, "Moore denied dating or sexually assaulting underage girls,[1] but did not deny that he had approached underage girls or dated older teenage girls." We don't need to say that he denied sexually assaulting anyone; it's only teenage women who are accusing him of sexual assault, so let's limit the denial to what he's been accused of. "Sometimes" serves no purpose. "Did not deny" is better than "acknowledged"; from my reading, I don't think he's ever clearly, affirmatively acknowledged any of this. Lastly, as was pointed out to me, he did deny dating underage girls, but did he ever deny approaching them? This would include harassment, groping, etc., so it matters. We should be as specific as possible here. Nick845 (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That proposal sounds like he was reluctant to deny assaulting non-underage females. We could also add that he did not deny sucking the blood of vampires, which he did not deny, did he? So I oppose that proposal, Melanie’s is fine (except for the afterthought about using the words “high school”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Both proposals might be parsing too much. Instead, let's just say, "Moore denied engaging in "sexual misconduct", but did not deny that he had approached underage girls or dated older teenage girls." His official statement makes a blanket denial of "sexual misconduct." We can qualify that denial based on his non-denial, when asked, of the other two things. Nick845 (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it is false. Moore did deny dating underage girls on Hannity. Txantimedia (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. There's a difference between approaching a girl and dating her. Maybe you'll think more clearly if you watch less Hannity. Nick845 (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Nick, he did specifically deny dating underage girls in his written statement to Hannity. If you are suggesting that he might have approached underage girls but gotten turned down (i.e. tried unsuccessfully to date them) - well, as far as I know nobody has accused him of that. His denial stands. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem, I'd say, is that Moore's specific denials have been so slippery. Granting that, though, there are still two issues with your sentence. The first is "sometimes" - that's a weasel word that serves no purpose other than to put Moore's actions in a softer light. The second is using "acknowledged", rather than "did not deny." What Moore said, when asked if he had dated older teenage girls, was "not generally, no." That sounds much more like a non-denial than an affirmative acknowledgment to me. I'm inclined to make those changes myself, but I'll wait for now. There's also a third issue, though not about this sentence - the 28-year old's groping allegation is nowhere to be found in the entire paragraph. I know it used to be there. If we're being complete, then it should go back. Nick845 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on using underage. Underage implies below the age of consent. Moore has denied dating anyone under the age of consent and has categorically denied committing any sexual assaults. By using underage, you imply that he has dated girls under the age of consent, which is false with the one exception of Corfman, whose claims he denies. In fact, I would argue that there is nothing controversial about Moore dating older teenage girls when he was a single bachelor. It's only being considered controversial in the context of the sexual assault allegations. The two should be separated and dealt with in entirely different manners. Sexual assault is a serious matter, possibly even criminal behavior. Dating teenagers when you're in your thirties was done in those days, especially in the South, and was non-controversial. Moore claims that he never dated a girl without her mother's permission, and one of the so-called accusers stated that her mother would not allow her to date Moore. If this article is to maintain NPOV, it simply must move away from these claims. I really don't care if RS "reports" it. It's wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not regurgitate the latest gossip from the media. Of the nine women who have come forward, three have made serious allegations that should be taken very seriously. The other six have made claims that don't even rise to the level of impropriety. He never attacked them. He approached some for dates and was turned down. Others he dated and some he kissed. All of his behavior with those six was well within the law and within custom at the time. Txantimedia (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your view of propriety here is irrelevant. "I really don't care if RS 'reports' it" means you might as well remove yourself from this discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? The policy on BLP is very clear. Just because something is RS does not mean it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, this entire article fits the definition of WP:RECENTISM perfectly. Numerous admins have pointed out problems with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and I have quoted the policies of handling BLP on controversial topics, yet this distortion of the story continues. I've seen Moore called a pedophile, when, even if he's guilty of all that's alleged, is a false claim. Yet it goes unchallenged by many. The entire article is now being considered for deletion because of the rampant non-NPOV nature of the edits. Even now the use of the word "underage" is being discussed here despite the fact that only one of the nine was underage, Moore has both denied her charges and denied ever dating underage girls. Txantimedia (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, what? Are you still talking about this article, or some other article, or something you read somewhere else on the internet which upset you? It's hard to tell. Volunteer Marek  07:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There's clearly more support for MelanieN's proposal than anything else, so I've made that change. I'm not closing the discussion, as there are additional changes still being discussed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, power~enwiki. I was about to suggest doing the same. I think this proposed sentence is based on Reliable Sources and covers what we want to cover. I agree with retaining "older teenagers" rather than replacing it with "high school girls", and not linking "underage" to "underage sex". As for some of the concerns raised here, nobody is calling him a pedophile (and if anyone does I will revdel it, as I have in the past). Nobody is accusing him of crimes. To me this wording is a big improvement over the "he did not deny" formulation, which I have always disliked (it kind of smacks of "have you stopped beating your wife?") --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Coming on

The lead now says Moore “acknowledged that he had sometimes approached and dated older teenagers.[5] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[6][7][8]” If he acknowledged it, why do we need the sentence about independent witnesses? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have it because it adds context to his weak acknowledgement that he "sometimes" ("generally not") dated teenagers. Multiple sources have indicated that he made it a practice and was known for it. But let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems okay later in the BLP with elaboration, but as written in the lead it seems either redundant or confusing. Other reasonable opinions and suggestions are welcome, of course. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede Paragraph

The arguments about the wording of the sexual abuse / sexual assault allegations are important, but I'm more concerned about the first paragraph: Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American politician and former Alabama state judge known for being twice elected to and twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for failing to uphold the United States Constitution.[1][2] He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, more than the revenue the organization disclosed on its tax filings.

Why is the "Foundation for Moral Law" being mentioned at all in the lede paragraph? Also, the phrasing of the first sentence feels like a WP:NPOV violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what s NPOV about that? It's entirely factual, well weighted and the thing he was best known for up until the sex abuse allegations came up. Artw (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Artw: I'd like you to explain and defend Special:Diff/812095857 so we can determine if there's a consensus for including that. I stand by my claim that including this information in the first paragraph of his biography is a blatant political attack. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It.... isn't? Maybe it should move down the lede a little, but I don't see you justification for removing it as valid. Artw (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that a "minor" scandal is being overshadowed by a "major" scandal. But the fact that he took money from his charity foundation is still very notable, even if there are allegations over some worse things he did. Volunteer Marek  00:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly worth mentioning in this article (and it also has its own article), I'm not sure it's worth mentioning in the lede. I'm also not sure whether he's being accused of fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, or something else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's not forget, they are still allegations and for that we are required to strictly adhere to NPOV, V, OR per BLP policy. The lede summarizes his career, and the allegations date back a long time ago. If they are included in the lede, it should go toward the end of the summary and it requires in-text attribution, or it should follow in consistency with our GA/FA bios regarding MOS, and leave the allegations out of the lede but include them in body of the article after his early life and career. That would be strictly adhering to NPOV, Balance, and Weight. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You're also confused about the subject of discussion. Volunteer Marek  07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No to what? That they are allegations, or that we don't have to strictly adhere to policy? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Everything in the article conforms to your shopping list Atsme, and best efforts are being made by contributing editors to make sure that it remains so. TBH editors coming around in and throwing around policy names like confetti without caring if they are applicable is becoming both tiresome and insulting. Artw (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see...well, don't be concerned. It won't be me who stands in the way of anyone's misinterpretation of policy. Keep on editing however you choose to edit . ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

In the lede sentence, "removed for failing to uphold the United States Constitution" is unacceptably POV, and not supported by the article text or the sources. We need to change it immediately to something based on the article text. I'm going to change it to "twice removed by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to follow federal court orders". --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual abuse section needs clarification

It currently reads

A total of nine women have accused Moore of inappropriate sexual or social conduct.[113]

One of those three women was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979

I think the juxtaposition of these two phrases may be confusing to some. I think the second sentence should be clarified with something like this.

A total of nine women have accused Moore of inappropriate sexual or social conduct.[113]

One of those three women accusing Moore of assault was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979 Txantimedia (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the sentence toward the top where it makes more sense. How does that look?- MrX 20:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a few word for clarity (emphasis added):

Three of those women described a sexual assault by Moore when they were aged 14 to 28, and several of the others described him pursuing a romantic relationship with them when they were as young as 16, while he was in his 30s.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The way it read before was odd. Txantimedia (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, 2 ≠ 'some'

About those surfacing claims in the lead. ("During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore ....") What was it, specifically, that they surfaced?

They surfaced that Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted two. Not "some". Two. The "allegations of sexual misconduct ... includ[e] claims that ... Moore sexually assaulted or molested two teenage girls while he was in his 30s." Jill Colvin, "Trump Chooses Legislative Agenda over GOP Repulsion of Moore", Associated Press, November 26, 2017.

"Learner's definition of some: an unspecified ... number of people or things." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This statement is inaccurate

In the fourth paragraph of the lede, this sentence appears. He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, more than the revenue the organization disclosed on its tax filings. While this is partly a direct quote from the cited Washington Post article, it ignores the fact that in the next paragraph it is reported that the charity couldn't pay the full amount. When the charity couldn’t afford the full amount, Moore in 2012 was given a promissory note for back pay eventually worth $540,000 or an equal stake of the charity’s most valuable asset, a historic building in Montgomery, Ala., mortgage records show. He holds that note even now, a charity official said. So, in fact, he was not paid "more than $1 million (and shouldn't that have been in quotes) but was presented with a promissory note, which he still holds. ISTM, at a minimum, the phrase should be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs)

That is the same as being "paid". Which is why the source used the word "paid". Volunteer Marek  07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not the same as being paid. Ask anyone who holds a worthless promissory note. The source doesn't say "paid". It says He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012. then it clarifies that that "collection" includes a sizable promissory note. Are we not at all concerned about accuracy? Again, 'at a minimum the prose should be quoted or it's plagiarism. Txantimedia (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The key word there is "worthless". This promissory note is not that (particularly since it's backed by real physical assets). " the board agreed to give Moore a promissory note worth $393,000 that Moore could cash in on demand, documents show. The board backed up its promise with a second mortgage on the charity’s historic building. In effect, the board was giving him the opportunity to foreclose on its headquarters to collect what he was owed. It also authorized Bentley to increase the amount owed to Moore as needed."

And yes it does say "paid":

"A Washington Post review of public and internal charity documents found that errors and gaps in the group’s federal tax filings obscured until now the compensation paid to Moore"

"The tax filing, covering 2011, said he had been paid' $393,000..."

And a few more times through out the article. Volunteer Marek  08:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"On tax filings for that year, the charity said he was paid $138,000 in “reportable” compensation and $42,000 in “other” pay — for the first time reflecting the $180,000 total he was to receive each year under the agreement."

Again, are we not concerned about accuracy? The use of "paid" is in reference to amounts he has actually received. And again, at a minimum shouldn't the direct quote of the Washington Post be in quotes? Or is plagiarism permissible on Wikipedia? Txantimedia (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

He did actually receive it. The word pay is not synonymous with cash. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Tim Scott

Scott is the first Southern black U.S. Senator elected since Reconstruction: 1881. He's always gone along with the party. That his position is so unusual is the story. Activist (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Republican Party has opposed Moore for quite awhile. Most backed his primary challenger. Even now, the only "support" for Moore is the opposition to his opponent. I haven't heard any public figures voicing support for Moore. If Moore wins, there is a good possibility they don't seat him and keep Luther Strange. --DHeyward (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, Donald Trump? Artw (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And the Alabama GOP. Txantimedia (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

On the advice of other editors, I'm going to undo my restoration of noting the ethnicity of Tim Scott and will request consensus for reverting it on the Talk page. Activist (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm requesting that consensus be determined for restoring the noting of Scott's ethnicity. He's the first black U.S. Senator from the South to be elected in 146 years, and by virtue of that occupies a unique and notable place in U.S. politics. Activist (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're including this material at all; and see no need to include his ethnicity even if we do include his opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And so we put his ethnicity in his article. We shouldn’t bring it out whenever we mention anything we think is unusual for him, particularly if there isn’t a direct connection. Besides, who cares about his hair color? O3000 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Leave him out. He is merely one more voice in a loud chorus of reaction. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That solves this problem. O3000 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lede - suggested improvement

The second paragraph seems oddly constructed to me. Right in the middle of the discussion of his AL SC foibles is this sentence Moore twice sought the Republican nomination for the governorship of Alabama (in 2006 and 2010), but lost in the primaries.. It seems out of place. Perhaps that section should be reworded. Here's my suggestion (highlighted in red):

Moore was elected to the position of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2001, but was removed from his position in November 2003 by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments commissioned by him from the Alabama Judicial Building, despite orders to do so by a federal court. After being removed from the Court, Moore twice sought the Republican nomination for the governorship of Alabama (in 2006 and 2010), but lost in the primaries. Moore was again elected Chief Justice in 2013, but was suspended in May 2016, for directing probate judges to continue to enforce the state's ban on same-sex marriage despite the fact that this had been deemed unconstitutional.

Thoughts? Txantimedia (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)