Talk:Roy Moore

Sexual accusations

These [1] absolutely must be discussed on the talk page before adding it to the article. So discuss. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Of the four women, the youngest 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.

In a written statement, Moore denied the allegations.

“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign,” Moore, now 70, said.

Help me out. A reputable newspaper reported allegations by a woman that Moore touched her sexually when she was underage. This is corroborated by her mother, childhood friends and court records from the time placing her at the time of the alleged incident. Three other women said he was also sexually interested in them when they were under 18. The campaign denies this. All these things should be known by wikipedia readers. Marsh17 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, what's the protocol for dealing with this type of content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

When the issue has been picked up by other sources, we won't end up omitting it here. Okay to wait a day or three. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Juxtaposedwithstyle, WClarke, Knile, Kart2401real, and CityOfSilver: to discuss this addition on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm at 3RR, and the sheer volume of people adding it suggests there is a consensus for including it, so I'm not planning to do any more removals of this. Can someone at least put the content in the 2017 election section, though? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is being picked up by other sources like CBS News, USA Today, The Hill, and Politico. We do have to be careful how we word any content added to this article.- MrX 19:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

We must follow Wikipedia policy. The policy is WP:NPV:

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus....

Due and undue weight

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, the way to determine whether a particular topic in the article has due or undue weight is to see how prominent those viewpoints are in WP:RS. If a viewpoint is repeated in multiple WP:RS, then it meets WP:UNDUE and belongs in the article. This story has been picked up by The Hill, Politico, USA Today, Axios, NBC, and other [[WP:RS]. (I'm deliberately leaving out arguably partisan sources like Mother Jones and Breitbart to avoid arguments about whether they are WP:RS, even though I think they are.)

That should establish weight. For that reason, the charges should go into the article. --Nbauman (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an issue with WP:NPOV because adding unsubstantiated text that, in its form on here, constitutes a passive-aggressive accusation that Moore is a pedophile rapist a month before the special election day is not the sort of behavior you'll see from a neutral, nonpartisan observer. I wonder what User:Marsh17 read that supports the claim "This is corroborated by her mother [and] childhood friends" because it couldn't have been that WaPo article. You should read the entire thing but if you can't, the first two words of its headline make clear that this story is primarily comprised of one woman's allegations. Quotes from her mother and friends are hearsay and the court records prove nothing but that the woman's mother was at that courthouse on that day. I also wonder what policy or guideline Marsh17 read on Wikipedia that supports their idea that "all these things should be known by wikipedia readers" because they didn't link to it.

It's also an issue per WP:WEIGHT because if someone has spent a lot of time as a controversial, highly visible public figure, their article would double in size if we were to start list every allegation regardless of what kind of traction they had. It's unfortunate because I believe the woman is showing a lot of courage by coming forward now, I think she's telling the truth, and I hope this torpedoes Moore's campaign. But until it does, we don't know if it'll endure. (Because if he wins, nobody will remember any of this.) CityOfSilver 19:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether the accusers are credible or whether the accusation is correct. Our job is limited to seeing whether it has been published in multiple WP:RS. If it has been published in multiple WP:RS, then it meets the test for weight. -- Nbauman (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's now the leading story on Google News, with at least 70 stories in major media. https://news.google.com/news/story/d_Vcif-499NHFRMUTraZE3BrrdoqM?ned=us&hl=en&gl=US So it clearly goes in the Wikipedia entry. --Nbauman (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. Normally, per BLP we would not report unverified allegations against a living person. But does BLP trump the massive (one might say hysterical) coverage? We need to catch our breath and give it a moment's thought. We have enormous coverage but all the stories seem to be based on the one Washington Post report. We normally require significant coverage from multiple sources for something like this. Right now all the sources are derivative from WaP, with no independent reporting except for reaction statements (all of them carefully hedged with "if the allegations are true…"). Do the derivative reports count as coverage from multiple sources? I'm going remove it and full-protect the page, just for a few hours, to stop the edit warring and give us a chance to discuss the issue here. Please state your recommendation below BRIEFLY and give a POLICY-BASED reason for it. MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick survey: include or not?

• Include but not in the lead section, and word very carefully. Unless the page is left full-protected I think it's impossible to keep it out, and as long as it's worded conservatively ("physical relationships with teenagers" over "sexually molested children") it should be fine as far as BLP concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  To clarify: if Moore drops out of the race (or loses) as a result of these allegations, they should be in the lead. But not yet (though maybe at United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Include, of course. This is not a close call: the sources are prominent and reputable (the WaPo piece is "based on interviews with more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982"), the issue is significant, and the content is relevant to the article subject. We should of course should be careful about wording, but that's easily done, by tracking what the sources say. We also should note Moore's denial, but again that can be done in a short sentence. Neutrality^talk 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Includeing it is a no-brainer. And yes, it should go in the lede section. Hell, before the day is over this might need its own article. Responses and all that (like Alabama Republicans saying they'd vote for Moore "even if" the allegations are true). Volunteer Marek  21:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is going to sprawl and [2]. Volunteer Marek  22:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh Jesus!- MrX 22:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Include - There's already a substantial amount of news coverage about this and several U.S. Congress members have even commented on the seriousness of the allegations. I agree with Neutrality that it's not even a close call. At this point, I'm not sure it is lead worthy, but in the next few days it may develop into something that is.- MrX 21:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

ETA: To answer MelanieN's request. The policy based reason is WP:WEIGHT and WP:PUBLICFIGURE.- MrX 22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Include Hi. Right before the article was locked, I made an edit to try to clarify the wording related to the accusations against Roy Moore. I looked to Kevin Spacey as an example; that article mentions the age of one of his accusers, while establishing that others of indeterminate age had made other accusations. *In that article the accusations are above the fold.* The wording I proposed mirrored that article as closely as possible. WP:BLP requires that we try to maintain NPOV, refrain from original research, and adhere to verifiability. The source in question followed all the guidelines of WP:RS as a major newspaper. Very clearly, women of various ages made accusations. One would have been below the age of consent. All of that is factually accurate and represents that these are accusations and not convictions. Captainktainer * Talk 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include in the article, obviously; covered by many RS and relevant to Moore. Unsure on whether to include in the lede. I've raised similar concerns in the Kevin Spacey talk page that recent stories should not be prominently displayed in the lede because it gives UNDUE weight to them. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include -- Given the rather large number of congressmen that have made statements so quickly, it appears to be DUE. I wouldn’t put it in the lead yet. But, it will probably merit the lead soon. O3000 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include Well sourced, major news that is impacting an ongoing election. It's WP:DUE to include, would be a major omission. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WEIGHT -- it is getting major traction in reliable sources, with senior Republicans calling on him to withdraw from the Senate race. Silly to exclude it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think most called for him to withdraw if he did something. McCain called for withdrawal period. O3000 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Include" is clear consensus. I will restore the paragraph to the article text. We still have an hour or two of protection to decide whether it should go in the lede. This is to determine whether it goes in the lede based on the current situation. Obviously we would re-evaluate if the allegations turn out to have a major impact, such as withdrawing from the race. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Please see my request on your user talk page. By the way, full protection was unnecessary and not a warranted under policy.- MrX 23:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD. Edit warring is the most common justification for full protection, and the article was getting heavily edit warred. The full protection will expire in an hour or two - but if the edit warring resumes it may be necessary to reimpose it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Include; I think the Captainktainer's version at 21:35, 9 November 2017, was properly nuanced both in the detail section and in the lead, and in compliance with issues of weight/undue weight and reliable sources. This story is as lead-worthy as the preceding lead paragraph, discussing "Moore collected $1 million in undisclosed payments to himself from the Foundation for Moral Law ..." —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• include unquestionably. Artw (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. Worldwide coverage, this is his primary claim to fame now, certainly from a global perspective. --Tataral (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. For the reasons stated above. Fluous (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick survey: include in the lede, or not?

• No, unless further developments occur later this month in the scale of the Weinstein scandal. Otherwise, I believe it would be UNDUE weight for the lede. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Given the weight currently given to campaign-related issues in the lede, it might be reasonable; however, any such mention should be limited to a sentence at most given the weight given to the 2017 special election in the lead. Mélencron (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• NoYes, however this controversy could sink his campaign, if not his career, so it may rise to lead worthy in the near future.- MrX 23:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  It's obvious that this is a major controversy that is not going away anytime soon. Given that two Senators have withdrawn endorsements, and Moore has received sharp rebuke from Mitt Romney, John McCain, Adam Kinzinger, and others, this is likely to be single most notable thing in Moore's checkered career.- MrX 15:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, sourced to reliable sources, and as significant as the lead paragraph discussing "Moore collected $1 million in undisclosed payments to himself from the Foundation for Moral Law ..." And there should be a {{Current}} or similar template at the top. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - merits a sentence or two. Neutrality^talk 00:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Tough one. I hate the whole NEWS aspect of this, but this is how quickly we "update" other articles. I'm going with no since that may be the last principle I have in life. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus on this. Counting the section above I see three "yes", one "maybe", and four "no." --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that mine isn't a "yes" (or "no", for that matter) – only a conditional based on consensus for inclusion. Mélencron (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Brr. The thought of intercourse with Judge Moore. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Patience – If it belongs in the lead, that’ll become obvious soon enough. Why waste time debating it now? O3000 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's become obvious enough. Volunteer Marek  15:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes most notable thing about a person with many notable and questionable characteristics. Artw (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm sorry, but that is really a ridiculous claim. That may be the most notable thing to you, but Judge Moore has been around for decades doing his various other things. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • He's not a judge. Also the allegations, which are strong and plausible, stretch back decades. Even if he succedes in his senatorial bid this will be the mostnotable thing about him. Artw (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Artw I still say yes, but I'm with Drmies, this is not the most notable thing about Roy Moore. —Anomalocaris 06:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Bombshell Report on Roy Moore Could Reshape Washington's Political Landscape Artw (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• No as per above, though there's every possibility I'll change my mind by Monday. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably change my mind by then also. I only come to these fbreaking news stories ‘cause I have a function key on my keyboard that types '''Patience''' and I want to make use of it. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - I think it's important enough to go in the lede. I can understand why some are hesitant. One important thing - this will most likely have to be revisited soon because the story is likely to grow. For example, [3]. Also, iiuc, even Trump now said that if the allegations are true, Moore should drop out. Volunteer Marek  14:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And now it's five "yes", five "no", and two "undecided". Still no consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

*Yes. This is now one (if not the) of the most notable things about Moore. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Not living in the US, this is the first time Moore is on the news in Europe; arguably more notable (abroad, and Wikipedia is not centred on any one country) than anything else Moore has done. Belongs in the lede (which should be trimmed). Jeppiz (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, but include only if this report significantly alters the race: Allegations like these are very serious and damaging, regardless of whether they're true or not. This incident is similar to the Access Hollywood incident with Donald Trump last October, and look now -- this incident isn't in Trump's article's intro, and rightly so, since Trump was able to shrug the story off. If Moore is able to do the same, so that one year from now nobody will remember the story or have any reason to do so, we should keep the story away from the intro. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And to clarify, my definition of "significantly alters the race" is if Moore drops out or if he loses a significant amount of his support directly because of these allegations. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • The difference is that there is just so much notable stuff to a President that it bumps other notable stuff out. There's really nothing in Moore's life that has earned him as much attention as this. Most observers say it's likely to affect the Senate race (with several prominent Republicans and conservatives calling for his withdrawal) and could even be grounds for the Senate booting him out even if he's elected. So, it has clear and lasting implications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Seriously? Not the 10 commandments case? Not the same-sex marriage case? Not his primary win against Luther Strange despite Trump's endorsement? All three of those events (and the first two got him removed from the Court) are clearly more notable than *allegations* that were just released yesterday.
• The observers who say it will affect the Senate race are predicting this -- they said the exact same thing after the Access Hollywood tapes with Trump. "Several prominent Republicans and conservatives" also called for Trump to withdraw after the Access Hollywood tapes -- they're reacting to the moment, and most of those calling for this don't even support or like Moore. How can you say it will have "clear and lasting implications"? All this goes against WP:CRYSTAL. The Access Hollywood tape appeared extremely damaging (with "lasting implications") to Trump in October, but look now. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, not the 10 commandments case. Not the same-sex marriage case. Not his primary win. None of these more notable than these allegations. Just look at the coverage of all three in the national press.

And Access Hollywood tape does still have it's won article. As it should. Also, it actually doesn't matter if this alters the outcome of the race or not. That is not the relevant criteria. The relevant criteria is simply how much attention this is getting in the sources. And it's a ton. Volunteer Marek  05:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Early indications are that it has cause a poll shift, though nothing definitive: [4]. Even giving a Moore win I do not see this going away - he will then be the senator with abuse allegations hanging over him rather than the nominee. Artw (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes It is very obviously importantEccekevin (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, it clearly needs to be mentioned prominently in the lead. Worldwide coverage, this is his primary claim to fame now, certainly from a global perspective. As mentioned, this is major news in Europe (and probably elsewhere around the globe), and it's the only thing he is known for internationally. --Tataral (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• No, We're still in the very early stages about unproven allegations. It's already come out that one of his accusers has been active in the Democratic party. Should be in body of article, though.Amberwaves (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And the false smears begin. Holy crap you people! You really got no shame. Volunteer Marek  04:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"False smears"? --1990'sguy (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup. "Hired by the Clinton campaign" to be an sign language interpeter at a rally and "active in the Democratic party" are not the same thing. And for fuck's sake, so fucking what if she had been "active in Democratic party"??? I don't care if she was Hillary Clinton's secret alien lover from Andromeda. There are four other women who have made the same accusations independently, their stories have been corroborated by outsiders, another one of the women - the 14 yo one - is actually a Trump supporter, the dude has admitted to "dating teenage girls" when he was in his 30's... you have to be a real shit to pull out this one minor fact out of the whole story - that she was an sign interpreter at some Democratic events - and choose to emphasize that rather than all the other parts of the story. It *is* smearing the victim and it's despicable. Smears can be based on true, but irrelevant facts. And they're effective, especially if targeted at immoral fucking morons who are just begging to latch onto any lame pathetic excuse to disbelieve a women when she says she was assaulted. Volunteer Marek  05:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, that account Amberwaves, is indef banned user CFredkin. And this kind of malicious crap is exactly why he was indef banned. So do me a favor and stop enabling this kind of behavior. Volunteer Marek  05:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You clearly did not actually read the article -- in the second paragraph, the article states that she also worked with Joe Biden, Patrick Murphy, and Bill Nelson. And I'm only showing that your claim of "false smears" itself is false. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article. She worked as a sign language interpreter at a couple other events that had Democratic candidates. So. Fucking. What??? Seriously, if you don't understand this then I doubt I can explain it to you. But let me try. To respond to somebody who says "I was sexually assaulted as a teenager" with "But you worked for a Democrat!" (therefore implying the person is lying) is extremely fucked up. It's scummy. It's a smear, 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts about that. Who the fuck thinks that way? And that's putting aside that there are several other women who have made the same allegation independently, that their stories have been corroborated, that Moore admitted to parts of the story. Whoever wrote that al.com piece (and I'm pretty sure it's user generated content) should be ashamed of themselves. Not surprised that Fox News picked it up and tried to make something out of it though (just another example why they can no longer be considered a reliable source) And not really surprised that a sock of an indef banned user is trying to push this here on Wikipedia. Haven't made my mind up yet if I'm surprised or not at the fact YOU are sitting here and trying to push the same ugly narrative (your sophistry about "showing the claim of 'false smears' is false" is just that. Sophistry and stomach turning weaselry. Just stop it)

I'd also appreciate it if you refrained from telling me what I have or "clearly" have done, since you've really got no way to tell. Volunteer Marek  15:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You're turning this into a moralistic debate over whether it's OK to report on something like this (not my intention at all, as seen with my original two-word comment) -- I have no interest in that, nor in your moralizing (yet profanity-laden) rants. Reply if you want -- I'm done. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait! Wait... wait... wait... lemme check... yep... yep... looks like it. Checks out. You gonna make me file a formal SPI or can we just strike your comments since you're an indef banned user who's sock puppeting? Volunteer Marek  05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, why is there a reference to disputed payments to the Foundation for Moral Law in the lead? That doesn't seem prominent enough to be included there.Amberwaves (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. desmay (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant here. Volunteer Marek  15:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, certainly, because this issue became central in his political career and in a much wider political context and other events in the country [5]. Basically, this is one of the most notable recent controversies, something he is now known for. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - include in the lead as it has very obviously become his primary claim to fame. --RevivesDarks (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous

Here are the page view statistics: [6]. The number of views went up by a factor of ... 50! From approx. 2000 views on 11/7 to... 100,000 vies on 11/9. There's no extra zeros there. Ninety eight thousand more views. Now, WHY do you think people are coming here to read this page? That's right, it's the sexual abuse allegations.

Now, I know how Wikipedia works. But it took me like four minutes (ok a bit of an exaggeration) to actually find this pertinent info in the article. It's buried way the hell down in the article. Relative to how big this is it's pretty short. And it's tucked in between other stuff to make sure that it's hard to notice.

This is pretty obviously wrong. This is the biggest story of this election and probably of Moore's life. And it's sprawling with Trump and a whole bunch of other people commenting on it. But for POV reasons we are trying to hush it up as much as we can.

Sorry, this needs to be in the lede, and not just in the lede but in the first couple paragraphs. Volunteer Marek  04:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I can't let this one go. We are the watchers on the wall. We are the last defense between the outsourced defenses / editorial policies of tech conglomerates, and the ravages of fake news. If people want to know "what is the latest news about Roy Moore", they have a hundred other sites to visit. If people want to know "what is a biography of Roy Moore that reflects his whole life and not just the past 24 hours" they really only have one. This one. The fact that companies pour traffic on to this site doesn't mean we should pander to it; if anything it means we should pander away from it.

Let the profit-seeking drive for the marginal click be relegated to other sites, on this site we have the integrity of our principles. Principles which include WP:NOTNEWS, which suggests that we shouldn't emphasize the story which broke less than 48 hours earlier. Principles which include WP:NPOV, which suggests that even if a myriad forces (apparently including the man himself) conspire to destroy this man, we stand neutral. </soapbox> power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We also follow sources and WP:WEIGHT. Or rather here we don't, and our overabundance of caution in following our own policies is beginning to make us look ridiculous and agenda driven. Artw (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles like [7] and various un-endorsements from Senators are definitely pushing this news story forward. But I see no reason to rush it, and many reasons not to rush it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Would suggest skipping all the stages of denial and saving everyone a bunch of bother. Artw (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to rush. WP:RECENT applies, and let's remember that this is an ongoing controversy -- even if false, these are very damaging accusations, and nothing is settled yet as to whether the allegations are true or not. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. It's a huge story and relative to its prominence and coverage we are going out of our way NOT to talk about it. It's straight up POV. Volunteer Marek  05:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein. That story broke on October 5th. Within minutes it was in the article [8] (not saying that it shouldn't have been) (oh look, he also threatened to sue his accusers [9]) A few hours later it had its own section [10] (that's still the same day, Wikipedia just time stamps everything weird). About a day later it was in the lede [11], which nobody actually questioned. On October 10th/11th, editors agree to have a separate article [12]. By October 12 it had its own article [13]. Weinstein really only fessed up to it (partially) on October 14th.

So why are we bending over backwards NOT to include this info here? Because of politically motivated users showing up to brigade and tag team to keep it that way. Where were you 1990sguy talking about "no need to rush" and bringing up WP:RECENT? That's right, it wasn't an issue there. But here it is? Like I said, this is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  05:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you invoked by username, I guess I'll respond. I have never edited Weinstein's article or talk page, and I have very little interest in doing so, or in him in general (like most Hollywood people), so you're ridiculously misrepresenting this by implying I was somehow at the center of a push to put sexual assault allegations in his article. WP:RECENT would also apply to Weinstein's article.

But what's the problem? The allegations about Moore also went in the article early on, and there was a very early consensus to do so. What I have an issue with is putting the allegations in the intro, but if these allegations do cause a big change in the election (which very well might happen), I think it would definitely be appropriate. I consider you implying that I'm "politically motivated" a WP:PERSONAL attack. I follow NPOV when editing and try not to let my personal views (which are not a secret) get in the way of my editing here. If I were "politically motivated" here, I would be advocating for very different changes. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Whether it affects "a change in the election" is NOT our standard for notability, inclusion in the article, or inclusion in the lede. The standard of inclusion is the extent to which the event has been covered in reliable sources. And that has been "A TON". Please stop making up arbitrary, non-policy based, rules or threshold to try and sneak in your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT POV into the article. Volunteer Marek  15:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this clearly needs to be mentioned prominently in the lead ASAP; it's his primary claim to fame. Any attempt to hide it/bury it is just disruption. --Tataral (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Many experienced editors agree with me, so go talk to them. I'm finished dealing with the moralizing and WP:PERSONAL attacks on this talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Specific wording

There's clearly a good chance something on this matter will be added to the lead section of the article in the next few days. What should that sentence/paragraph be? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I added something, feel free to improve. Possibly the Washington Post ref shoudl move up to the lede to match, though usually citations in the body are sufficient for an article. Artw (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Moore has been accused of inappropriate sexual contact with teenagers whilst in his 30s, including the molestation of a 14 year old girl when he was 32. - ABSOLUTELY NOT! Also, I was hoping additions to the lead would be discussed here before adding it to the article. 21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about this summary. Probably underplays the extent to which his behaviour towards teenagers has been cinfirmed. Artw (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Also I'd appreciate you not citing BLP inappropriately in edit summaries. Artw (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that if anything the sentence underplays the well-covered nature and subsequent resonance of the allegations. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with that; the only reasonable complaint about that sentence would be that it underplayed the controversy, that it was too brief etc. In fact this controversy and its implications should be discussed in more detail and should additionally be mentioned (briefly) in the first paragraph; requiring readers to read no less than six paragraphs about less important stuff before even mentioning what he is actually known for is not the way to do it. (Of course, the situation now is that the lead section includes tons of less important, even trivial material, while omitting entirely the only thing the guy is known for on the global stage). --Tataral (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It has now been added by User:Volunteer Marek. I do feel the lead could use a trim - I'm not sure what to do with the Foundation for Moral Law stuff, it's probably important but it feels awkwardly tacked on now. The beauty of 'anyone can edit' is that these things tend to get bloated and awkward. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed. I think the volunteer's solution is also a good one, so I was about to strike a part of my comment above. --Tataral (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on a new lede at my sandbox. Trying to collaborate with people who don't understand why "molestation of a 14 year old girl" is a BLP concern is beyond futile. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but at the very least the age of the youngest woman needs to be mentioned since that is the biggest deal in that whole story. Volunteer Marek  02:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been done to death in RS, eliding it for the sake of it is silly at best and POV at worst. --RevivesDarks (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia censoring stuff?

Why can't anyone edit WP to cite reliable sources that Moore is accused of sex? I don't want to put it in but I want to read about it.

Sorry, no pun intended. Besides, I don't have one. AGrandeFan (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, anyone can edit WP. Not anyone can edit any article. This is one of them, since it's vandalized frequently by people who are damaging the integrity of the article. Also, no pun intended, that's what you're suggesting: he's not "accused of sex", whatever that means, and if you had inserted that we would have to take it out. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • BLP appears to be being heavily abused here. Artw (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Drmies and Neutrality: Can one of you please keep an eye on this talk page, and revdel or protect as necessary? I have to go out and there are BLP issues - people keep accusing him of a crime. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense in "Allegations"

This sentence is nonsensical:

"Three other women came forward to say Roy Moore, in his 30s, pursued relationships with them when they were teenagers, of which three of the women were of the legal age of consent at the time."

Three of three women? It appears an edit was not consistent. If three women are the total, and all three were of age, then it should say "...teenagers and above the age of consent." Siberian Husky (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Propose changing to "Three other women came forward to say Roy Moore, in his 30s, pursued relationships with them when they were 16-18, with the legal age of consent being 16." starship.paint ~ KO 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Anyway, the reference is broken. MelanieN could you help cite it to the Washington Post reference further up in the section? starship.paint ~ KO 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I believe in Alabama the marriage age was 14 at the time. So this was legal as long as none of these women was his full sister (half-sisters/step-sisters are ok). 104.183.232.251 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the broken reference and made a stab at fixing the ungrammatical sentence. The protection will expire soon and people can do normal editing again. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

its worth noting their stories are corroborated by friends they had told at the time and I think two of their mothers knew as well. One mother told Moore to stay away, that he was trying to "rob the cradle" Those are very important details. Also worth noting these women are not seeking money, nor do they know each other nor are they associated in any way. Please provide something other than "some women claimed that" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.99.3.159 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Moore's defence of Eric Lemont Higdon

Bit surprised that the article does not see to mention this:

In 2015, while Moore was serving on the Alabama Supreme Court, he considered the case of Eric Lemont Higdon, a 17-year-old, who was convicted of raping a 12-year-old at a daycare center. Higdon was found guilty under a sodomy statute that applied specifically to minors, as well another statute prohibiting rape. The second conviction was overturned by an appeals court and sent to the state supreme court for review.

Eight justices found that the 12-year-old’s fear of harm from a much older and larger individual was enough to establish “implied threat of serious physical injury” and reinstated Higdon’s conviction. Moore was the only dissent, saying that there was “no evidence in this case of an implied threat of serious physical injury.” Moore oddly argued that the court’s interpretation opened the door to a 10-year-old being found guilty of raping an 8-year-old. [14]

In light of recent accusations it seems worthwhile of mention. More sources here: [15] [16] [17] Artw (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, two of those sources are unacceptable to use: Think Progress is a liberal advocacy source, and the Washington Examiner article is a conservative op-ed. Mediaite also seems questionable. This leaves the al.com source, which is good, but adding this story simply because it seems relevant today when it did not receive much coverage back then and not any more right now does not justify actually including it. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In light of Moore running for Senate, this is a perfectly acceptable edit. If its references you desire, Find Law is a fine. [18]As is Justia, which provides the actual ruling and Moore’s descent. [19]--Lakota1981 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of court record, so sourcing is not a problem, though arguably WP:SYNTH and weight would be if no sources went further into it.

Couple more sources:

• The Week Watch GOP Sen. Luther Strange accuse Roy Moore of being soft on pedophiles back in September
• Daily Kos Roy Moore was pervy while writing AL Supreme Ct decisions. And Trump's a peeping-tom. (that headline possibly not so helpful) Artw (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual encounters with teenagers

The following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Moore&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=809535833&oldid=809535699

removed the following text

The woman, as described in the article, claimed there were two encounters at Moore's house, the first of which being a date where he "told her how pretty she was and kissed her." On a second date, Moore "took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes...touched her over her bra and underpants...and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear."

with the reason in the Edit summary

"removed non-encyclopedic details about the alleged encounter"

I think this edit removes significant content which belongs in the entry. Describing it as a "sexual encounter" is too vague to let the reader understand the facts. A sexual encounter can be anything from unwanted touching of her arm or waist to forcible rape. The reader needs enough detail to understand the incident. Wikipedia entries should not be written in a way that readers are required to follow links to the original in order to get essential information.

Under the policy WP:NOT WP:NOTCENSORED:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia....

Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.

I would like to restore this text.

If you believe it is "non-encyclopedic", please explain, citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, why it is non-encyclopedic. As noted above, your personal feelings, or being "objectionable" or "offensive," is not a valid reason. --Nbauman (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article currently has the text "These three women said that Moore did not force them into having a relationship or non-consensual sexual contact." - this seems to be a misrepresentation of the sources unless they gave consent for the bra and underwear touching? Artw (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WaPo: “None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That is correct, but by our earlier omission we have now given the false impression that no action without consent was alleged. Artw (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What omission? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The briefly deleted section immediately before that sentence. I see no problem now it is restored. Artw (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the content. Artw (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added "allegedly" to the aforementioned paragraph given that Moore has issued a blanket denial and per WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." ^Falling_Gravity 18:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW Moore appears to confirm at least some of the claims whilst defending himself in this interview [20]. I beleive at some point we may be able to remove at least some of the "allegedly"s - in particular I;m not sure the one in the heading belongs. Artw (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

At this point; interpreting that interview as a confession is unwarranted. In maters like this, a LP gets the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

More on the interview: Moore Responds to Sexual-Misconduct Allegations With Evasive Maneuvers - again assides from the denial of the sexual assault on the 14 year old he essentially confirms large swathes of the surrounding story. Artw (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

https://thinkprogress.org/former-prosecutor-says-it-was-common-knowledge-that-roy-moore-dated-high-school-girls-b73e489bea05/ Former prosecutor says it was ‘common knowledge’ that Roy Moore ‘dated high school girls’ Artw (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusations

Shouldn't the accusations be moved to an independent "heading 1" section? It makes more sense then it being in the current spot... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DakotaSurf (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

They just went multi-paragraph, so it would make sense. Artw (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That would blatantly violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP because these accusations were just reported on yesterday, and they are still *accusations*. Claims like these are extremely damaging for anybody even if they are shown to be false. If this is anything similar to the Access Hollywood recordings with Trump last year, this incident will only merit an extremely insignificant location/byte size in this article -- though, of course, this could go either direction at this point. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not how either of those policies work. Artw (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong on that -- I did just think of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS in addition (for the latter, I refer specifically to the line "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information," and using a level 2 header would be unduly emphasizing the info). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We're in day two of global coverage right now. Artw (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is still current information (aka breaking news). See the tag at the top of the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And WP:RECENT applies regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a statement on the matter form the Whitehouse.[21] all those policies would be cause to excercise caution but do not outweight the weight given to this by coverage, which swamps anything else about Moore.

Own section or not, the current placement is problematic as it suggests it is something to do with the election. Other than the accusations coming out now it's not, and we may be misleading readers by associating the two. Artw (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

International coverage

• http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/calls-for-republican-senate-nominee-in-alabama-to-quit-over-sexual-misconduct-accusations/story-bJTCuuZIUetdzJTnUHVTON.html Calls for Republican senate nominee in Alabama to quit over sexual misconduct accusations
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/09/republican-panic-builds-as-roy-moore-defiant-over-sexual-abuse-allegations Republican panic builds as Roy Moore defiant over sexual abuse allegations
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/senate-roy-moore-sex-accusations-1.4395471 Roy Moore, controversial Senate candidate, accused of sexual contact with teen
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/roy-moore-latest-child-sex-abuse-gay-homosexuality-comparison-a8048831.html Roy Moore: Republican candidate once claimed homosexuality was more damaging than child abuse
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41945199 Roy Moore: Conservatives back firebrand after abuse report

Artw (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

comment

I was sked on my talk p. to make a general comment in addition to the specific discussed above. section 8.9 and 8.12 add unnecessary editorialized debunking his views. Section 3.6 on his removal is in greatly excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard not to see the additional text in 8.9 as needed context - not everyone is going to be familair with why such a view would be controversial. Artw (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Similarly not seeing a lot of fat to cut in 8.12. Artw (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Also I'd say that the idea that the notion that material regarding a politicians views and political actions would be inappropriate and too WP:COATRACKy for an article, as posited by User:Ad_Orientem is vaguely ridiculous. He's running for senate, for gods sake, we're going to want to know if he wants to repeal the 1st amendment etc. Artw (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with presenting his views, some of which are absolutely controversial (arguably fringe). But we need to be mindful of DUE and NPOV. Are there no issues or positions he has taken that are not completely loopy? If so, one would not know that from reading this article. And lastly we are not here to make the world a better place or to alert people that Roy Moore is a political wingnut. See WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly from a a review of sources I suspect the unfortunately truth is he really is that cartoonishly evil. Adjusting the article to make it less "excessive" would just result in making it counterfactual. Artw (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your above comment is frankly disturbing. We do not construct articles by selectively only including controversial material. The more I look at this, and the more I read this discussion, the more convinced I am becoming that this article is seriously unbalanced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked if the artcile could be tilted to portraying him a bad light. My response would be that he is portrayed as the sources portray him, which is per Wikipedia policy. And I would mit that it has a cartoonish quality and it is largely from my POV bad, though I'm sure if you shared similar views to him he'd actually be "cartoonishly great". Artw (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW if this constitutes the entirety of your justification for adding the undue template i will be removing it shortly. Artw (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... removing a maintenance tag w/o consensus that the issues raised have been addressed is a no no. As for my personal opinion on Moore, I could not write it w/o violating BLP (and using language I picked up in the Navy). But my private opinion of him is neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I've posted a request for some other opinions over at WT:POLITICS. If I'm off base here I'm sure I will be told as much shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:UNDUE tag, at least for now. The concern about section 3.6 "2016 charges in Alabama Court of the Judiciary" being too long can probably be addressed with a spinout article. I don't see why the paragraph on "Foundation for Moral Law" should be in the lede. And the "Political positions" should at least contain some positions that he's proud of and are somewhat mainstream, assuming there are any (gun control? abortion?); the tendency of editors to add every negative news story has overwhelmed that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We cannot assume any policies from him that lack sourcing. Given that i can't see the tag as legitimate, it;s just an expredsion of displeasure with the article. Artw (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs UNDUE and NPOV improvements, as well as Power~enwiki's assessment of the article and potential improvements. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I created Roy Moore's tenure on the Alabama Supreme Court. And I'm almost certain such sources exist; we certainly can assume those policies exist for an hour while we discuss this and I try to find them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see some evidence that this article contains any distortions, deliberate omission of relevant information or deviation from sources in its depiction of Moore. Preferably with some sources and actionable suggestions for edits attached. Artw (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

...or you could just vandalize it. That's great. Artw (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing is not vandalism. The entirety of the content is preserved on a sub-page. I'm tempted to revert you, but as the article is under 1RR I'll let somebody else do it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would not qualify arbitrary large scale deletion as "editing". Artw (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Artw, what are you doing? There are four highly experienced editors who have expressed NPOV and DUE concerns about this article. Please show some respect for WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have to agree with it, but you must respect it. I strongly favor reverting your restoration of material that looks grossly UNDUE and would ask that you do so yourself. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would ask what four experienced editors are doing gutting an article and refusing to justify their actions except in the most abstract of terms. Artw (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I am moving excessive details (not every news story on his 2016 removal needs to be in this article) to a sub-page. I find Artw to annoy me in an irrational way such that I plan to refrain from any further edits or talk-page comments on this topic for the next 12 hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are correcting serious NPOV and DUE issues. If you don't want to help, fine but please don't be obstructionist. Again, please see WP:CONSENSUS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki Please don't withdraw. Artw seems to be suffering from a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and it is getting tiresome. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What he said. But, you might consider deleting text in smaller pieces. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Objecting to bulk deletion of sourced content on spurious grounds of "balance" and without any attempt at engagement is hardly "obstructionist". Artw (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Artw when four (maybe five) editors are all saying that there are NPOV and DUE issues, and you are alone in your disagreement, then yes your recent editing is obstructionist, bordering on tendentious. Please stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've that your deletions of sourced content be justified and that you identify any alleged problems with the article properly and in detail, which you have failed to do. I've also made one revert of a mass deletion that I think can quite reasonably be held to be excessive. Artw (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Still unclear on what exactly is "UNDUE". Yes, there might be some parts which need trimming, but "needs trimming" is NOT the same thing as "UNDUE". Volunteer Marek  01:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been replaced. Still no explanation of DUE issues except the insistence there are some, except maybe Power~enwiki suggesting we add some nice articles about Moore and then failing to provide any. Artw (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(I can't let this falsehood go un-challenged, despite my best intentions) I did add a section with a reference that he was pro-life, but you reverted it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, must have missed that in the bulk edit. Feel free to restore if you think it is relevant. Artw (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(Also I am very much unsure why Moore being pro-life would be new to the article or affect WP:DUE one way or another). Artw (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is pro-life. If the term is used to mean anti-abortion, scare quotes would seem in order. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored that section, though possibly it is already covered by the section "Attributing disasters to homosexuality, abortion and declining religiosity" or the two should be merged? And yes, again we are straying into the outlandish and weird, but sadly that is the nature of the subject. Artw (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(one more reply, against my best judgment) While 50-75% of Roy Moore's positions are outside the mainstream of the Republican party, probably 95% of those in the article are outside the mainstream of the Republican party. Not including any of the positions that the Republican party as a whole supports is misleading. Apart from the excessive volume of some of the judge-ship section (and Marek makes a valid point regarding WP:UNDUE there, which I'm not going to comment on), the fact that none of his "mainstream Republican" positions are mentioned while all of his weirdo positions are is a perfect example of WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be asking us to give WP:UNDUE weight to a position that he is "mainstream" without backing it up with sources? And arguing that we should delete material contrary to that if sources claiming he is mainstream cannot be found? Possibly we should RFC this but I do not see this as a tenable position. Artw (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• In the interest of keeping the temperature here to a manageable level I am going to take a note from Power~enwiki and step away for the night. I will come back tomorrow morning and see where we are. Perhaps more editors will join the discussion. In the meantime I wish to make it clear that I strongly object to removing the UNDUE tag until we have a consensus that the issues raised have either been remedied or don't rise to the level justifying the tag. Good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The issues cannot be resolved as, outside of a suggestion we censor sourced content to make Moore look more normal no issue was defined. And that suggestion is blatantly outside of common sense and Wikipedia WEIGHT policies. I suggest the template be removed as cruft. Artw (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that the article has an overall WP:DUEWEIGHT problem. There may be an opportunity to condense some material, but for the most part it seems to reflect coverage in reliable sources. I'm opposed to removing large amounts of material without first discussing it here and getting consensus. I do agree with DGG that section 3.6 (now 3.5) is excessively detailed. I do not agree that section 8.12 (now 8.13) contains editorializing or debunking. It's mostly facts and Moore's own words.- MrX 02:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your overall assessment, but I think your comment is fair and not unreasonable. We can continue this discussion in the morning. I am using tooth picks to keep my eyes open right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add Template:Undue weight section to the "Chief Justice, Alabama Supreme Court" section (or possibly just "2016 charges in Alabama Court of the Judiciary"), but don't see a good reason to keep a top-level UNUDE tag at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

An undue template appears to have been placed on this page without an actionable description of the issues the placer would like to see addressed, except a general hunch that the article could me more favorable to its subject. Since this is not actionable and the article conforms to Wikipeida policies I suggest we remove it. Artw (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

See the section right above. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I read the section above and frankly, it fails to state which content is specifically undue. Roy Moore, IMHO, creates his own controversy. If anyone objects, then Moore needs to correct some of his behavior, the content seems neutral to me. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Its become a political thing now, so looks like we'll be putting in and taking out the utterly worthless tag like a pack of idiots. As memtioned above I'd suggest an RFC to resolve the issues, but there are no stated issues so that's pretty hard to do.

(Has that flag ever been useful in the history of Wikipedia? It seems to operate solely as a rallying flag for contentious editors. Nobody who has ever added it has ever done Wikipedia a favour.) Artw (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The tag has been removed and restored twice now. Clearly there is an ongoing discussion here on this subject. Both out of respect for 1RR and the ongoing discussion the UNDUE tag should not be removed until a consensus is reached here supporting that action. [I am off to bed shortly but will look in again in the morning.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the tag, because there was an objection that "section 8.9 and 8.12 add unnecessary editorialized debunking his views. Section 3.6 on his removal is in greatly excessive detail" and those concerns still seem to be valid and not entirely resolved. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Artw your refusal to read the repeated comments by numerous editors has reached the limits of my patience. If this tendentious editing and imputation of bad faith editing continues this is going to be taken to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You have consistently failed to give a more detailed explanation for your tag, therefore it remains meaningless. If I had to guess I'd say it's there because you got into a weird ego-driven snit about it when I said the article wasn't COATRACK. Artw (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't find the consensus you keep alluding to particularly convincing either. Artw (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There are at least five editors who agree that the article has NPOV and DUE issues. Our objections have been laid out in the insanely long thread above. Your continued imputation of bad faith editing is deeply offensive, as is your argument that there is a desire to normalize this man. Anyone who seriously suggested that this man is within the political mainstream would cause me to question their competency to edit the article. But there is a difference between reflecting the clear consensus among reliable sources that Moore is a political extremist, and composing an article that doesn't seem fit to acknowledge that some of his views are actually mainstream w/o piling in every story and reference that tends to make him out to be a lunatic. Seriously the article looked like it had been written by the DNC. DUE does not require balance where that doesn't exist in reliable source coverage, but it does require that all aspects be fairly covered, and that is not the case at the moment. It also means that we don't "pile on" with the negative material. Some of your above comments suggest that you are heavily motivated by an IDONTLIKEIT attitude towards the subject. I don't fault your revulsion, which I share. But your comments suggest you have allowed your bias to affect your editing here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I suppose if that's the entirety of your argument and you have no further specifics I guess I should thank you for paying it out like that. I still consider it vague and unactionable, and the remedies that have been suggested contrary to Wikipedia policy. Likewise the tag remains unhelpful, as those a re generally only added in bad faith. Artw (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It might be helpful for the editors with concerns to create a detailed outline of which sections are UNDUE, so all of us can review them. Let's all work together to improve the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Enthusiastically seconded. Artw (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. I will try to work on that in the morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

*I have begun a section by section review of the article. This is going to take a while but one issue I am already seeing is a shortage of references for the earlier sections that deal with controversial claims of fact. This could be a problem per BLP. While I am not removing any text, I am adding CN tags as I go along. In order to minimize tag bombing I am confining myself to a single CN tag per unreferencecd paragraph. But in many cases more than one cite will be needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any CN tags where relevant citations are provided in the paragraphs above - those are just cruft. If you are not checking for this then you need to be. Artw (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If an earlier cite specifically references the same claim of fact, in other words the claim was already made and referenced earlier, then yes the CN tag can be removed. I am trying to keep my eye on that. But all claims of fact that are not obviously non-controversial need to be cited to one or more reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you at least move the UNDUE tags to the appropriate sections rather than have it at the top of the article?  Volunteer Marek  15:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hus answer has always been a vague "all of it", so until he works on the outline that is not possible. Artw (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the issues involve more than one section it is better to have just one tag at the top. However, I am sure you will be happy, so far I've only found a few spots, though I'm still early in my review. It looks like some issues may have been edited already. When I'm done I may suggest removing the tag altogether. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds more like you didn't actually do any initial assement of the article. Please go ahead and remove the tag. Artw (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No and no. And because other editors have expressed support for the tag, I cannot remove it unilaterally even if I wanted to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If you've previously assessed the article and now might judge if differently due to edits that have been made could you summarize those edits? The article is largely the same as it was yesterday. Artw (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Assume good faith and give him some time. Volunteer Marek  17:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW most of the CN tags I've tackled so far appear to be related to fairly conventional points regarding Moore, of the kind the article supposedly does not include, and that he presumably would cover in depth in his autobiography. Not really helping the "UNDUE" case, though admittedly helpful as markers for where the article needs a little tightening up on sourcing. (If anyone wants to read his book it can probably be added as an additional source for many of these, not something I am up for though) Artw (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• This tag clearly does not help to improve editing atmosphere around here. Quite the opposite. It is usually needed to attract attention of people to an issue. But there are many people already editing this page. This tag is a recent addition, and should not be restored if "challenged through reversion" as the banner on the top of this page tells. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Ok. Per the suggestion by Octoberwoodland what follows is a section by section analysis, which obviously is my interpretation and is open for discussion...
  • The Lead- Mostly Ok. Posting a reference to this "nickname" seems UNDUE for the lead, suggest remove. I'd suggest condensing the last paragraph to a shorter summary as this is covered in detail in the article.
  • 1.1- No issues.
  • 1.2- Added a few CN tags but no really major issues here.
  • 2.1- Needs more refs but otherwise looks OK.
  • 2.2- No major DUE concerns assuming this is all accurate, but it is completely unreferenced. That needs to be fixed as it involves controversial claims of fact per BLP.
  • 2.3- Completely unreferenced.
  • 3.1- Referencing again. Otherwise not bad.
  • 3.2.1- Ditto
  • 3.2.2- Ditto
  • 3.2.2- No issues
  • 3.2.4- No issues
  • 3.2.5- Eh. I'd prefer a few more cites but it's OK.
  • 3.3- Referencing
  • 3.4- No issues
  • 3.5 Overly detailed. Needs condensing. Probably UNDUE in its current form.
  • 4.0- No issues
  • 5.all- No issues
  • 6.1- The last sentence probably needs a cite though I don't doubt it's accuracy. Not bothering to tag.
  • 6.2- No major issues. One CN tag added.
  • 6.3- One ref link is dead and the other I am not sure if it's RS. Needs a cite for the election results.
  • 6.4- No issues
  • 6.5- No issues
  • 7.all- No issues. 7.2 has a very negative tone to it, but it's fair and solidly sourced.
  • 8.0- This summary of his views seems to be limited to the more obviously fringe positions he has taken ignoring mainstream ones. Does he have any mainstream political views? Based on this section an otherwise uninformed reader might reasonably conclude that he does not. Yet he is a fiscal conservative favoring balanced budgets and opposes high taxes. He supports gun rights and favors an originalist approach to interpreting the Federal Constitution. Whoda thought? This section is really problematic per DUE and NPOV.
  • 8.1- I'd suggest using the phrase pro-life vice antiabortion as I think that's how he characterizes it and I tend to favor that approach. In the same vein I think that for those supporting abortion rights we should use language like pro-choice or supports women's abortion/reproductive rights. But this is a minor quibble.
  • 8.2- No issues
  • 8.3- No issues
• 8.4- This is not a political position. At most it's a religious belief. It might merit a mention, but not in this section.
  • 8.5- I'm ambivalent on this one. It is political but I kinda think it might be better if we created a subsection somewhere for all of the loony conspiracy theories he subscribes to.
  • 8.6- No issues.
  • 8.7- Meh. This section might be making too much of something whose link to Moore doesn't look all that strong. Not sure.
  • 8.8- No issues.
  • 8.9- This is not a political issue. It's a religious belief. Doesn't belong here. I'm not sure it warrants any mention at all but if it does, it belongs elsewhere.
  • 8.10- This seems to be focusing on a minor issue that's garnering some short term attention just to get in a quick "He was wrong!" shot. In addition to DUE and NPOV I'd also cite RECENTISM. This is far too trivial and should probably go.
  • 8.11- No issues.
  • 8.12- Ditto
  • 8.13- This seems excessive in detail and probably should be condensed. Do we need to catalog every homophobic aspect of his life? The first sentence in the fourth paragraph needs to go. What amounts to a no comment reply to a question doesn't belong in the article.
  • 8.14- In the first paragraph, the first sentence is fine. Everything after that seems excessive and UNDUE. The 2nd paragraph is fine.
  • 8.15- No issues

• A few concluding thoughts: The bulk of the DUE issues are in the section dealing with his political views which others have also pointed to. The other issues is weak referencing, mostly in the earlier sections of the article. That is a problem given that in some cases it involves controversial claims about a person, who is one of the most polarizing figures in the US. I do have other things I need to attend to both on wiki and in the real world. I will try to get back here a little later in the day. In the meantime please do discuss the issues I've pointed to and feel free to raise any that I might have missed. The sooner we can reach consensus on them and move on the better for the article and the project. Courtesy Ping power~enwiki, 1990'sguy, Objective3000, Volunteer Marek, MrX, Octoberwoodland, Anythingyouwant, Artw. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over. I tagged a few sections, created a new section for non-political beliefs, and re-worded the anthem stuff because it's not clear to me he was calling for incarceration. Will check in here now and then. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Page appears largely free of citation issues now. Artw (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

My comments on the above list:

• I agree that nothing should be left unsourced. Now that that the text has been tagged, I'm sure cites will be added forthwith.
• 8.0: These are the political positions that have been extensively covered in sources. The fact that his (as you call it) mainstream positions are not represented in the article are because they have not been extensively covered in sources. Isn't this how WP:DUEWEIGHT is supposed to work?
• 8.4 (now 8.2): I agree.
• 8.9 (now 8.7): I agree.
• 8.10 (now 8.8): I think this section could go, although other editors may disagree.
• 8.13 (now 8.11): First, let's review: Moore is most notable for the 10 commandments fiasco; his virulent views and actions with respect to LGBT rights; and apparently now for not generally molesting a child. I don't see anything in the LGBT rights section that is not highly significant. Every word is relevant to his tenure as a judge, and even more so now that he running for the highest legislative office in the United States. There may be a way to trim a couple of words from the second or third paragraph, but I'm at loss how to without loosing important context.
• 8.14 (now 8.12): The overall content is important but could probably be trimmed to about half the length.- MrX 20:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I endorse MrX's view, particularly as far as the (seemingly-long) LGBT section not being undue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur re the section on his medieval attitudes towards homosexuality. The subject is very important, but the amount of material is overkill. Cut it in half and there's no danger of anyone misunderstanding what this man believes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that idea, but I would be interested in what sentence(s) you think should be cut. Maybe I missed something.- MrX 23:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

An absolutely outstanding job on fixing the article and making it adhere to NPOV. I commend the editors who worked together on it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

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

"if true"..."would be a felony"... Okay, however...

What about a statute of limitations? We're almost 40 years after the fact. 69.34.54.184 (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Since she was under 16 at the time, there'd be no statute of limitations. Volunteer Marek  07:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Further coverage

• https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/11/11/in-call-with-us-lawmaker-roy-moore-doesnt-deny-kissing-teenagers-as-30-year-old/ Roy Moore Didn’t Deny Kissing Teenagers as 30-Year-Old in Call With Lawmaker
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/roy-moores-refusal-to-exit-alabama-senate-race-reflects-diminished-power-of-washington/2017/11/11/07251708-c65f-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?utm_term=.44bb1ef9a5dd Roy Moore’s refusal to exit Alabama Senate race reflects diminished power of Washington
• http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_denies_sexual_miscon.html Roy Moore denies sexual encounter with teen, accuser hits back: What we know today
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/11/trump-has-no-comment-on-roy-moore-because-he-doesnt-watch-much-tv Trump has no comment on Roy Moore because he doesn't 'watch much TV'
• http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/11/post_120.html Are evangelical voters giving a 'blank check' to Roy Moore?
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-dont-republicans-dump-roy-moore/ Commentary: Why don't Republicans dump Roy Moore?
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/alabama-republican-voters-stand-roy-moore-n819906 In Alabama, Republican Voters Stand by Roy Moore
• http://www.macon.com/news/nation-world/article184079411.html Some GOP political operatives fear Roy Moore could lose race
• http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/the_unbuckling_of_the_bible_be.html Roy Moore defense: Unbuckling the Bible Belt
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-donald-trump-taught-conservatives-to-defend-roy-moore How Donald Trump Taught Conservatives to Defend Roy Moore
• http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/comparison-of-roy-moore-controversy-to-bible-s-mary-and-joseph-draws-ire/story-wnuJYikQ7ZvRTqnmTqva3O.html Comparison of Roy Moore controversy to Bible’s Mary and Joseph draws ire
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-roy-moore-evangelical_us_5a06a546e4b0e37d2f379665 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-roy-moore-evangelical_us_5a06a546e4b0e37d2f379665
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/us/politics/roy-moore-alabama-republicans.html Alabama Republicans Defend Roy Moore: ‘It Was 40 Years Ago’
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5072193/Local-Republicans-embattled-candidate-Roy-Moore.html 'I think the turnout is going to be larger FOR Roy Moore': Local Republicans BACK embattled Senate candidate accused of preying on teen girls - as supporters share photo of his accuser working as an interpreter for Hillary Clinton
• http://whnt.com/2017/11/10/what-could-the-allegations-against-roy-moore-mean-to-the-alabama-gop-and-voters/ What could the allegations against Roy Moore mean to the Alabama GOP and voters?
• https://www.mediaite.com/tv/attorney-for-roy-moores-foundation-calls-don-lemon-lemon-squeezy-twice-in-strange-interview/ Attorney for Roy Moore’s Foundation Calls Don Lemon ‘Lemon Squeezy’ Twice in Strange Interview
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-schmidt-roy-moore-gop-defense_us_5a066d78e4b05673aa595e25 GOP Strategist Says Lincoln Is Rolling In His Grave Over Roy Moore’s Defenders
• http://www.kitv.com/story/36818728/the-unholy-excuses-of-roy-moores-allies The unholy excuses of Roy Moore's allies

Artw (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And it's easy to keep going with the sources. The fact that this is being kept out of the lede is just testament to how easily Wikipedia can be gamed. Volunteer Marek  15:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be a seperate section and in the lead. Currently it is hidden behind a wall of text that will likely be missed. It needs to be moved. OhOhCanada (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Funding claims

Throughout the article there are some various claims as to how well Moore was funded in a campaign versus how well his opponent was funded. All of these are oddly specific, ie " Judge Moore won his election to Chief Justice with just over $200,000, compared to the over $2 million spent by his opponents" and "Moore unexpectedly defeated both without a runoff (as he had done in 2000) despite being heavily outspent ($225,000 to $1.5 million)" but come without citation. Do we really need these? i am thinking of deleting them all. Artw (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If there are no citations, then do a quick search to see if there are RS out there, and if not, yeah, delete them. Volunteer Marek  18:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources (campaign finance reports) almost certainly exist, but I don't see any reason to include this. The sourced quote about him having "absolutely no funds" is more than enough for that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Beliefs other than political ones

Surely these are pretty clearly political beliefs? Artw (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ad Orientem that they’re more like social beliefs, religious beliefs, or personal beliefs. If he proposes or opposes government action, then it’s a political belief. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

His attacks on the LGBT community are political in nature as they provide a justification for persecution. Likewise his anti-science beliefs clearly have political ramifications. Artw (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless that's expressly stated in RS sources that's SYNTH. I don't actually disagree with your analysis. It's just that this has to be expressly stated somewhere we can cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps simply have a section called "beliefs"? Or "Views"? not worth fighting about it, surely... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a possibility but given he is largely known as a political figure, I tend to think that there should be a section that focuses on that aspect. I don't see an issue with separating some of his non-political views. Putting them in a section by themselves can actually lend more attention to them. Normally that would be a DUE issue in itself, but given how prominently he has made these fringe beliefs on his own, I think putting them in their own special section is perfectly legitimate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If they were about water polo or the correct way to make tea of something, perhaps. Describing these as political is a dodge and an insult to those affected. Artw (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If they’re included under political beliefs, then we ought to say whether he’s proposed to put those beliefs into law, or is happy to live and let live. If it’s unknown, then we need to convey that too, so readers won’t assume he wants to put it into law. He may well be the kind of person who wants to run every detail of everyone else’s life. If so, let’s find sources that prove it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

These are, in my view, political beliefs (views on evolution are part of "culture wars" and impact policy), and Moore expressed them in interviews and statements made as a political candidate. I can't see a sensible reason to atomize content. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

An argument can made to that effect (provided there is some RS source that connects the dots) with respect to his bizarre views on homosexuality. But rejecting evolution is not inherently political. In fact it is a pretty mainstream religious belief in many parts of the US. We would need a really solid RS source labeling his beliefs on that as political before we could put it back there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is a university press-published book stating that in 2010, Moore ran attack ads against a primary opponent focusing on the opponent's acceptance of evolution. Neutrality^talk 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a valid source establishing it’s a political belief. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That rings the political issue bell. I'd probably add that to the section with the cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientum, you appear to be removing content relating to Moore's anti-LGBT views, in particular regarding the death penalty for homosexuality[22], something that makes the views expressed here extremely politically relevant. Artw (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was asked a question that he declined to answer. There is nothing there. We don't put material in that clearly is intended to imply something that he did not say. Sorry that sentence was a massive UNDUE and POV fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Artw I see you have ignored my objection and reinserted the POV/UNDUE sentence. I also believe you may have breached 1RR in doing so. I would encourage you to self revert. If you think that belongs in here we can open it up for discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

My experience on this and a million other politician pages is that we include "non-committal" stances when RS deem those non-commitments notable. I don't remember this content exactly but wasn't it notable enough to be a headline for the RS that covered it? (I added it originally) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that practice. On those occasions when I have run into it, I have almost always opposed it. We have our own standards that are not always the same as those in the press. Just because somehting gets press/media coverage doesn't mean it gets in here. He didn't answer a question. That's it. Putting that in here is clearly POV and UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's extremely common that we say that a politician has not taken a position on issue X or declined to take a position. For a recent example, see the Ralph Northam page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Have undone my edit restoring that content. In my opinion that edit is extremely poor and the content should be restored at the soonest possible convenience. Artw (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Obviously we disagree on whether this belongs, but I appreciate your self reverting until we get a consensus here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the evolution stuff back up, with the additional material and cites. As for the rest: Commenting on the causes of 9/11, Sandy Hook, and opining on abortion and same-sex marriage is clearly political. The citations come from Politico (which is a politics publication) and the Washington Post POLITICS section. It's plain weird to argue that these are not "political" views. Call it "political and religious views" if you like, but it's certainly political, and that's how the reliable sources characterize it. Neutrality^talk 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've likewise mored the LGBT stuff up. You can't call trying to hang Sandy Hook on gay people apolitical. Artw (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The beliefs under dispute here are obviously political. I added the content originally. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Montgomery Advertiser print edition

I've removed the following...

In January 2012, the Montgomery Advertiser reported that the single-biggest donor to his campaign (having contributed $50,000 of the total $78,000 received by Moore until December 31, 2011) is Michael Peroutka, a longtime acquaintance of Moore's who is associated with organizations such as the Constitution Party and white supremacist group League of the South and is a frequent guest on The Political Cesspool. In response, Moore said he did not share the ideas of those organizations.

...as the Wayback Link deadends on a page saying the article is available in the print edition. If anyone can confirm the cited material in the printed edition we can restore the content. Artw (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Artw: I was able to find this: https://web.archive.org/web/20141018163412/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20120109/NEWS02/201090304/Donor-tied-extremists-Out-state-lawyer-major-contributor-Roy-Moore. This gives the first few paragraphs. If we want the rest we'll need to go to Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. Neutrality^talk 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this sentence belong in the article?

In 2015, when asked if he believed that homosexuality should be punished by death, Moore answered, "I'm not here to outline any punishments for sodomy."

The above sentence was challenged and removed as a breach of UNDUE POV and possibly SYNTH. here. It was subsequently reinserted, possibly in breach of 1RR and definitely without talk page consensus here. [This has been self reverted.] Does this belong in the article?

• No A question was asked and not answered. Inserting this is a clear attempt to imply something that was not stated in violation of UNDUE and POV. In this case the press/media coverage does not overrule our guidelines against making insinuations of an extremely controversial nature that are not backed by clear evidence. IMO this is a serious BLP vio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes It is clearly notable that he refuses to answer a question regarding putting one tenth of the population to death. Artw (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. I have no idea how anyone could conceive of this as implicating BLP (please quote the specific language from the policy that you believe applies), nor how this one-line entry is "undue." This was an public interview of a public figure, the source is good, and the statements are relevant. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure it improves the article, but none of BLP, NPOV, or UNDUE require its removal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. There’s never a dull day at Wikipedia, is there? The proposal snips out part of the question and part of the answer, as reported by CNN. The question included that some people say death should be the penalty, and part of Moore’s answer was “I can't help what some people say, what some people do." If you look at the YouTube, Moore even implied that he supported the law as it stood prior to 2003, which did not include a death penalty. So we’ve snipped all this down to the point where Moore sounds as bad as possible. My view is that simply describing Moore is sufficient, rather than painting horns on his head. Painting horns is fun, and often effective, but we ought to let the BLP subject stand or fall on what he is rather than exaggerating. Moore says homosexual activity should be illegal. End of story. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That's still a non-answer to a very important question. Artw (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

So say he gave a non-answer instead of insinuating he supports the death penalty. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In 2015, when asked if he believed that homosexuality should be punished by death, Moore answered, "I'm not here to outline any punishments for sodomy." Artw (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Moore has not explicitly said what he thinks the penalty for homosexual activity should be. Correct? If it’s correct, then I support including that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

He has said that when asked if homosexuality should carry the death penalty. Any answer other than a straight "no" is significant here. Artw (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• No - The sentence clearly is meant to suggest something that he didn’t say. Besides, it’s thoroughly dishonest. The following words were removed from the beginning of his reply: “Well I don't, you know,” His actual statements are outrageous enough without exaggerating them. This is a BLP vio. O3000 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In what way is his statement "Exaggerated"? The text literally recounts the question and gives Moore's answer - no interpretation required. Neutrality^talk 22:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• No. Concur with Anythingyouwant's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• Yes - The overall context matters a great deal. It is important to reflect his direct response (avoidance) to a very relevant question because of his association with Kevin Swanson and his history of attacks on LGBT rights, including blatantly violating the law on several occassions.- MrX 22:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. This is clearly intended to imply he supports capital punishment for homosexuals. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Since that's basically the thrust of the source [23] I don't see how it can be SYNTH. Artw (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's SYNTH because it is clearly intended to imply something not expressly stated, namely that he supports capital punishment for homosexuals. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a faithful reflection of the source. If your concern is that only a portion of his response is quoted, then that can be addressed by including his entire response. Notably, when asked if homos should be punished by death, he didn't say no.- MrX 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I checked the source. There is no way to consider this a WP:SYN. This is an important and telling statement by Roy Moore. Actually, punishing homosexuality by death would be illegal in the state of Alabama, to say the least. Not answering "no" to such question tells a lot about the person, and not only about his personal views, but also about his fitness for the office. But he said a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And you want us to also exclude his disavowal: “I can't help what some people say, what some people do”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's so much a disavowal as it is a dog-whistle.- MrX 23:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure it’s a disavowal. If you don’t think it’s enough of one then we can quote Moore’s spokesman: “Appearing in any interview is never an endorsement of the interviewer. Responding to CNN is a great example.”[24] Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No. I am looking at that your later source, and what does it tell in the end?

“I’m not here to outline any punishments for sodomy,” Moore said in video posted online two years ago. “That’s far beyond any issues I’ve come in contact with,” Moore responded. “I can’t help what some people say, what some people do.” Moore was suspended as chief justice last year for instructing Alabama probate judges to defy a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Hence the source makes an explicit connection between his statement and his actual actions, actions that led to his suspension. This is notable comment to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes it belongs in the article. It's a direct quote, thus not a BLP-vio. It shows that he calls homosexuality "sodomy", and that he implicitly believes in sodomy law / punishments for sodomy, not excluding death. If that isn't relevant, I don't know what is. It was a deliberate non-answer answer indicating that he would not deny it. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, in the full quote he actually did say no. Now, you could also argue that in the way he said it he didn’t mean no. But, when you start arguing that no doesn’t mean no in anything related to sex, you’re on an oil-slicked slope. O3000 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I originally added it. WP:SYNTH accusations are rubbish: the specific question asked of him in the RS is recounted and his answer in quote-form given. If users want to add longer quotes, that's fine. If Moore or his campaign has updated his position on the issue, then that update should be added as a supplement to the initial non-committal stance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes It's not SYNTH, it's a direct quote that is a very clear evasion of the question that speaks to his political views and deserves to be included. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Relevant as a reflection of his views. Covered in reliable sources. LK (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• No I found [25] where Moore says "I’ve been accused of saying I want to kill homosexuals because the Bible says. And I don’t." There's no reason to over-emphasize a vague statement on a talk radio show. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• No: Per Anythingyouwant, Objective3000, and Power~enwiki. Not only does the current sentence misrepresent what Moore actually said and meant, but he has stated in other instances (as shown above) that he opposes the death penalty for homosexuals. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right infobox

Why has the Alt-Right infobox been removed? Artw (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Because of everything in the "Insertion of "far-right" and "alt-right" links in lede" section above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to the lead sentence of the "Political positions" section. Artw (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Approximately none of the many links you had in "Further coverage" refer to him as alt-right. Just because one article in the Jerusalem Post called him alt-right doesn't justify an infobox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... [26] Artw (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh ... supporters of the Christian fundamentalist candidate, along with the most prominent platforms of the so-called alt-right suggests that he's a "Christian fundamentalist" and that the alt-right is something different. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Censorship

Why are the sexual assault accusations not in a seperate section? It is in the campaign section, which makes the accusations appear partisan. OhOhCanada (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoa there OhOhCanada—that's not censorship. Where do you think the section should be placed, and why?- MrX 21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's my fault for not reading down in the thread and seeing why it was delayed. It's changed to my request anyway by another user. OhOhCanada (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of Censorship, why are conservatives on the "talk" page being censored? We can't even say stuff on the "talk" page? This article is very biased in favor of the Democrat Party and people have been pointing that out on this page only to have those comments taken off the "Talk" page. I have seen several comments taken out. Gee whiz you would think there is an election tomorrow or something! --75.130.91.73 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Efforts to delay the election as a result of the allegations

[27]. Volunteer Marek  21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Well he would say that, wouldn't he - I think we can do without adding this if that's what you're suggesting. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the fact that Republicans are trying to delay the Senate election until this blows over is notable and should be added to the article. More sources [28], [29], [30]. Volunteer Marek  01:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned at the very end of the 'alleged sexual encounters' section already, though on further thought I suppose we could elaborate on the attempts and associated criticism. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ayatollah of Alabama

Should the phrase "Ayatollah of Alabama" be included in the lead? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally I'd say no, but coming as it does from the President of the SPLC I would say it is defensible in the context of Moore's well-documented views. --RevivesDarks (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No. It's not a phrase that you regularly see in coverage of him, and it adds nothing to the lede. There is no space to waste in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Seconding. Artw (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Not in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is commonly used to described his theocratic views. Obviously it is not used by the right-wing media, but doesn't mean it should be censored.Eccekevin (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No per UNDUE and POV. It seems to have be a popular phrase among some of his critics but it does not have enough coverage to justify being in the lead. I do however agree that mentioning it in the article is reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No, not in the lead. The accusation regarding the 14-year-old is a very serious criminal charge. Adding a bunch of silly name-calling into the lead dilutes, obscures, and discredits what’s really important in the lead, such as the stuff about the 14-year-old. Let’s just give readers the important facts in the lead, because turning it into a propagandist lead will be obvious to readers, not to mention contrary to Wikipedia policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The women "say Moore did not force them to do anything"

Is this accurate? Genuine question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Very questionable and murky territory with a 32 year old and kids under 18. I also note that the current lede has Moore denying any contact with ANY teenagers, which is innacurate per what he's admired to in interviews. Artw (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the lead is now incoherent - apparently the behaviour was inappropriate and yet consensual and perfectly fine at the same time. This isn't NPOV, this is muddying the waters and it's making the article look ridiculous. --RevivesDarks (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The Article body says “These three women said that Moore did not force them into having a relationship or non-consensual sexual contact.” Is that inaccurate? The cited source says “None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The lede seems pretty clear on which one he did do that with without the qualifier. And it breaks the following sentence. Remove as cruft. Artw (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The source says other things as well -- including that he provided them with alcohol, despite their not being of legal age to drink it. Getting someone drunk undermines the notion that they consented. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We now simultaneously state, in the space of two sentences, that four women accused Moore of inappropriate sexual behaviour and that three of them say he didn't force them to do anything (they are, of course, on record in the source as saying that they found his behaviour troubling and inappropriate, but nevermind that) This is obviously less than ideal wording and could be interpreted by a casual reader as contradicting itself. Remove. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove which? Only the reliably-sourced info that is not damaging to the BLP subject? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I would hope that all information in this article is reliably sourced and if it is not it should be removed. The fundamental fact, according to RS, is that he was accused of inappropriate behaviour generally. I am concerned with the readability of the lead and not allowing it to turn into a bloated mess of counterarguments. It should summarise everything as briefly as possible and let the article body do the job of explaining the allegations in as much detail as is deemed appropriate. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This did not remove lengthy counterarguments. It removed very brief undisputed facts that are necessary for NPOV. No one will believe this BLP if it’s a shameless hit job, which is unfortunate because the incident with the 14-year-old looks very serious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We should reflect what the sources say. Did all three say they got “drunk”? If so, that may belong in the lead with Moore’s denial. I strongly object to removal of the clearly well-sourced statement that “the others were above the legal age of consent and say Moore did not force them to do anything”. It’s WaPo. Are they not anti-Moore enough for you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We reflect the sources. We have the main body of the article if we want to put in any additional back and forth over the exact parameters of Moores behaviour or the drinks offer. Artw (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What you removed is not the drinks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The drinks are not mentioned in the lead and never have been. Hashing every possible aspect of Moore's alleged behaviour out in the lead is ludicrous and will inevitably lead to an unreadable tit-for-tat mess. We should merely state the allegations in a summarised way in the lead and go into the details in the main body. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead presently suggests and implies very strongly that the three women were not at the age of consent, and that Moore forced them into some sort of sexual situation. All of that is blatantly false according to a very simple and understandable statement by the Washington Post. People here seriously want to argue with the Washington Post about this, on the basis that Moore got the three women “drunk” when no reliable source says they were “drunk”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead does not suggest that all were under the age of consent. That is no more implied than the notion that his supplying them with alcohol means that they were drunk. You seem to want to see one implication but not the other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead says 'inappropriate sexual behaviour' which is as succinct a summary of the RS as possible, in keeping with the purpose of an article lead. As far as statements that could imply things go, that one seems pretty careful to me. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

When speaking of crimes and potential crimes, I don’t think vaguely lumping one type of thing with another is accurate, but rather is misleading. Many readers will see it that way too, and will stop reading as soon as they see it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead calls them all teens, says the youngest was 14, and says the relationships were inappropriate. It speaks for itself. In contrast, WaPo says Moore did not force the older three to do anything, which strongly implies he did not get them drunk. Apples and oranges. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is just a bugbear of mine, but could we refrain from trying to use WP:BLP when discussing well sourced material that has been given due weight? BLP does not mean hiding or minimizing such material to make the article "nicer", it means using proper attention with such material - something we've been pretty scrupulous with here - possibly overly so. Artw (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

something to note is one reason its illegal to have sex with minors is they are believed to be too young to give consent, that they are too young to understand the possible consequences, etc. So claiming contact with minors was "consensual" conflicts with the view that minors cannot give consent. A more accurate decsription would be he did not force himself on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boriz The Spider (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Great job

The allegations about sexual misconduct is excellent. Its informative, neutral and well written. Great job you wiki editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boriz The Spider (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)