Jump to content

Talk:Roy Moore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.130.91.73 (talk) at 19:15, 18 November 2017 (editing war on the talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Liberal Bias

Its bad enough that the anti-Moore zealots have staged editing wars with the main article but now they are engaging in editing wars with the talk page as well. Every time I raise the concern the article is biased against the conservative Republican, my concerns are not only unaddressed but some someone supporting the other candidate erases my concerns off the talk page. Who are these people that consider themselves guardians of the talk page? I would have thought that constructive criticism would be helpful in re-writing a very unfair, very biased article. --75.130.91.73 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

"Sexual Advances" should not be used for asking for a date BLP

"Sexual advances" sounds pejorative as used for asking a girl for a date. I changed it to the actual fact of trying to date or dating. "Sexual assault" commonly refers to rape, so it is better to use more specific language, namely touching panties. BLP (PeacePeace (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

It is entirely possible to be sexually assaulted without being raped. But if you want to be more specific, then we can be more specific... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are worried about being "pejorative" in this context, then you might have the wrong worry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is how it was worded in sources. "Advances" have been replaced by a stronger wording, "assault". I am not sure if that would be appropriate. 15:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"Sexual assault" is the descriptor used in the latest story: New Roy Moore accuser to come forward in Monday press conference Artw (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one goes with "sexual contact", but I can't say I care for that construction: McConnell: Roy Moore should step aside Artw (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, I don’t think much of the BLP subject, but just because you think a definition is nonsense does not make it so:

  • “While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." ‪Paludi, Michele. Campus Action Against Sexual Assault, p. 56 (‬ABC-CLIO‪, 2016).
  • ‬”sexual assault. 1. Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent. 2. Offensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.)

If we use the term “sexual assault” then we need to give some clue about what kind of sexual assault, or else we are unnecessarily suggesting rape. This is a WP:BLP issue, and you dismissing it as nonsense is, uh, nonsense. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything those prove that sexual assault doesn't inherently mean rape. This is hair-splitting now. --RevivesDarks (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is “usually seen” as rape, and the primary legal definition is intercourse without consent (I.e. rape). But states may define it differently, (hence the secondary definition). Would it kill us to say which way we’re using the term? Or is our goal to suggest rape when the sources clearly say something other than rape? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to force someone's mouth over your genitals against their will is most definitely attempted rape.- MrX 00:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. Of course it is. Are all the five women alleging that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is rapidly approaching the point of utter ridiculousness. Artw (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Anythingyouwant: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. No one is claiming that he tried to rape all five girls. The article text seems perfectly clear to me. - MrX 03:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article previously said "In November 2017, allegations arose that Moore made sexual advances on four teenagers when he was in his thirties." I would oppose changing "sexual advances" to "sexual assault" in this sentence without specifying the type of sexual assault, because otherwise we'd be suggesting that Moore is accused of attempting to rape four teenagers, which is false AFAIK. I hope that clarifies my view on the matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your view is clear enough -- but it's also wrong. Sexual assault comes in several varieties; if you think that someone who hasn't been raped hasn't been sexually assaulted no matter what else has happened to them, then you're simply mistaken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly agreed above that sexual assault comes in several varieties, and that someone who hasn't been raped may still have been sexually assaulted. I will keep on saying this over and over if you want me to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK Anythingyouwant, if I understand correctly, you would oppose "...allegations arose that Moore sexually assaulted four teenagers when he was in his thirties." I agree, because three of the four teenagers were pursued, not sexually assaulted, according the sources. - MrX 12:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede too lengthy, detailed

The lede is massive (dare I say ridiculously so) with far too many details that should be left to the various individual sections. 69.34.50.65 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until a write-in GOP candidacy is official (and my WP:CRYSTAL prediction is that will be Wednesday or Thursday), I don't know how to re-write the lead. My half-done effort is at my sandbox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a common problem with freaking news. Likely to continue as we will probably see new revelations. We’ll need to continue moving stuff down the page. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While it will be difficult reducing the intro, it probably is a good idea. It is uncomfortably long in its present form. My recommendation is to make the intro be a lot more general in its description and leave the detail in the article body. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I pruned it a little bit. As far as I'm concerned the sexual allegations should be cut entirely, or cut down to one sentence at the most. It's all still very much in flex (with new allegations out today, allegations that as far as I know were deemed to be very credible), and we are way too close to the news cycle. Ha, tell you what, I'll give it a go, and if one of you here reverts, that's fine--if it's someone who hasn't been weighing in here on the talk page, it would be nice if they commented before reverting. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, just saw this. You were reverted and I re-reverted. Meant to include a request to come to Talk. But, hit the wrong button. One too many glasses of Chard with my salmon. O3000 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's Salmonday. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to recover from my masochistic tendencies. Wrong place again. O3000 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed245, this is where you can discuss these matters. I see you've got a few hundred edits and maybe you aren't aware of all the ways and means of collaborative editing--we are not at a stage in this article where every single edit has to have consensus on the talk page before it is made; we are in a stage where we are discussing things. There is consensus that...well I don't have to repeat my edit summary. O3000, thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware. I just think your edits were bad.
A consensus in favor of generally trimming the lead - if it even exists - is meaningless. We need to know what's actually being removed. That's especially true here, where you cut the lead in a very substantial, very questionable way, and it doesn't look like you've actually justified your particular edits on here any more than I did. One example: you included the sexual assault allegation of one woman, while mysteriously excluding the other, similar allegation (arguably more serious). Another: you removed a Vox statement that added broad context to just how extreme Moore's views are. If he's running for the Senate, then it's useful to know how his views stack up to the rest of the Senate. Another: now that we've removed what actually happened in the primary, where Moore beat Strange, the paragraph looks disjointed and incomplete. Another: you excluded the fact that the women's accounts were confirmed by multiple independent witnesses, which we need in order to convey the seriousness of what's being alleged. Point me to where there's consensus for any of this, and I agree that your edits should stand, pending further discussion. Otherwise, I think you should start taking your own advice on collaboration. Fixed245 (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the prediction in an editorial about the political position of a candidate in an election is in any way leadworthy, you aren't really aware of what an encyclopedia is. And "mysteriously"--nothing was done mysteriously. If you want to know what's "actually being removed", click here. Strange and all that have their place--further down in the article. Really, see WP:LEAD. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Vox article again - that's not a prediction, it's a description. As for the rest, just repeating what you did isn't that convincing. You actually have to provide reasons to back it up. I'm still waiting. Fixed245 (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I generally support Drmies lead trim, but I'm having trouble with this sentence:
"However, in November 2017, five women alleged that Moore had dated or attempted to date them when they were still in high school, and one of the women stated that when she was 14, a 32-year old Moore initiated a sexual encounter."
We are describing dating, molestation of a child, and attempted rape as "dated or attempted to date". It should be something more like:
"However, in November 2017, three women alleged that Moore dated or attempted to date them when they were still in high school; one women stated that when she was 14, a 32-year old Moore initiated a sexual encounter; and another woman said that Moore attempted to sexually assault her when she was 16."
Thoughts?- MrX 03:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, I'm fine with any kind of change in the wording you want to make there: I merely made an opening move, and I think I kept as much of the original in there. But for stronger wording you may find resistance, though of course some sources will put it that strongly. I'm not wedded to what I left there and I am happy to withdraw, but I will jump back in for BLP matters, as I think you'd expect from me. Good luck and happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support mentioning that the age of consent is 16. Highly relevant. The three women in high school whom he tried to date were of the age of consent, right? Moore’s alleged behavior is plenty bad enough even when we provide all the most pertinent facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can have that the sexual abuse is "alleged", and that he denies it, but all of the rest of the hair splitting and arguing the toss probably belongs down in the main body. Artw (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The age of consent is mentioned in the body of the article. We should not include it in the lead, since there is no mention of statutory rape and it doesn't apply to dating anyway.- MrX 12:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Drmies it has expanded a bit. I suggest the following trims:
Moore denied allegations of sexual assault, calling them fake news and a smear campaign, but did not deny consensual relationships with teenagers.
Also, why do we repeat in the lead that Moore is a candidate in the special election for Senate and that he won the primary against Luther Strange? Isn't once enough?- MrX 21:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we can do without the fake news bit. I would also ditch the second sentence 'Moore is the Republican nominee...' if we have to ditch anything. --RevivesDarks (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensual relationships with teenagers is too vague. A consensual relationship with a 14-year-old could be statutory rape, whereas a consensual relationship with a 16-year-old could not. I don’t see why there is a desperate insistence at this BLP to not say that these particular females were above the age of consent at the same time we say there were consensual relationships.. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could use wording like "...but did not deny consensual relationships with teenagers over the age of 16." Or at least something else that clarifies this while still being brief in the intro. Moore has strongly denied any relationship under the age of 16, but he appears to have been open to admitting relationships that were legal (assuming they were consensual). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can't say that he "has strongly denied any relationship under the age of 16" unless he has done exactly that (which I don't believe he has). We don't need to insult our reader's intelligence by discussing the age of consent when we have not discussed sex occurring between 30+ year old Moore and the 16 year old teens.- MrX 23:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: "has strongly denied any relationship under the age of 16" was not my proposal. Notice that I did not put any quote marks around that sentence -- that sentence was my thoughts, not a proposal to add. My proposal was something along the lines of "...but did not deny consensual relationships with teenagers over the age of 16", as I said above. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK 1990'sguy, I stand corrected. I would support that as an improvement of the existing text. (adding "...over the age of 16." to the lead.)- MrX 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t want to imply sex between them, you could replace “consensual relationships with teenagers” to “consensual platonic relationships with teenagers” or “consensual friendships”, but “consensual relationships” strongly implies sex. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Am strongly in favour of dropping all the prevaricating bullshit that has been lobbied for. Artw (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The content needs to paraphrase this from the source:

"Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.
— The Washington Post

We can't introduce original research.- MrX 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change before reading this, but I agree with what has been said here: that "consensual relationship" has strong sexual connotations and that we are wrong to imply that he "did not deny" such relationships. We are talking about what he has "not denied" doing, or even agreed that he did. I have changed "consensual relations" to "did not deny approaching and dating". --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More teens

Locals Were Troubled by Roy Moore’s Interactions with Teen Girls at the Gadsden Mall Artw (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows, but Jesus. Not this.
Sources tell me Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls. If Moore keeps lying, that story will soon come out in a big way too.
Artw (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are only rumors from unnamed sources. Can't be taken seriously and certainly not included on the page. 69.34.50.65 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, but when reported in reliable sources, that's a different kettle of fish. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia demands reliable sources, not written affidavits. The New Yorker is a reliable source. From the article it becomes clear that the journalist was not relying on rumors written on the bathroom wall, but that she spoke with the witnesses himself. ---- 79.223.8.242 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times says: By Monday night, an article in The New Yorker asserted that Mr. Moore had been barred from the mall in his hometown, Gadsden, for bothering young women, a memory that many in the town said they shared, though no one has found direct evidence. [1] Can't find any reference in WaPo. There hasn't been any verification by mall management. Still appears to be in the rumor category. O3000 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The banning was confirmed by one of the security guards who worked there: "Legat said () J. D. told me, ‘If you see Roy, let me know. He’s banned from the mall.’" Volunteer Marek  22:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Roy Moore, Long Divisive in His Hometown, and Even More So Now Artw (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read it. Sad. But, what's your point? O3000 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker article that is needed to be added

Putin reference taken out of context

Moore has strongly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating that he is maybe "more akin to me than I know [myself]." This is isn't what the Guardian article said. It Putin's position on gay marriage suggested to Moore that they might have more in common than he was aware of. Please correct this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.161.249 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the sources do mention gay marriage, they are also talking about wider context:
"When The Guardian's Paul Lewis, who was probing the rising popularity of Russian President Vladimir Putin among U.S. conservatives, told Moore that former President Reagan called Russia "the focus of evil in the modern world," Moore said it wasn't the only one. "You could say that very well about America, couldn't you?" Moore responded in the interview published Wednesday. [2]
That could be added I think. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two new accusers

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/new_roy_moore_accuser_he_didnt.html New Roy Moore accuser: 'He didn't pinch it; he grabbed it'

One more sexual assault, 28 at the time, one more attempted "dating", 17 at the time. Artw (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This'll probably prompt someone to pile in even more diminishing and confusing language into the article, but I should probably point out that the latest sexual assault in the "Alleged sexual encounters with teenagers" section is not actually with a teenager. 23:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be split into another article.
Two more?
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/two-more-women-describe-unwanted-overtures-by-roy-moore-at-alabama-mall/2017/11/15/2a1da432-ca24-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d0331eeb9ee7 s

Two more women describe unwanted overtures by Roy Moore at Alabama mall] Artw (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article split

With the number of accusations, should we create a seperate page?OhOhCanada (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not, though some of the more-political details may belong at United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you would see them as primarily related to the election. Artw (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd say no. But that could change if any of the allegations are proven. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's fine for now. --RevivesDarks (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The parts about possible write-in candidates are certainly related to the election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That’s speculation that there will be write-in candidates, and then speculating on the effect of the speculation. Is that what an encyclopedia does? O3000 (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it ends up having a broader social impact and we ed up having to spend a lot of time discussing people who are not him, then would be the time, I'd say. Probably would lean heavy on the social aspects that have led people to condone/support some of his behaviour, what that means for evangelicals/republicans etc.... Artw (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also as the section expands it's going need some better structuring and subsections - possibly per account? It's very easy to lose track right now. Artw (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we now have Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal. I don’t think it’s really necessary yet, because this main BLP is not very long yet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like better structuring and it'll accomodate the inevitable expansion better. Artw (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casprings: ??? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. missed this and a few drinks... but come one, you know this is big enough to be WP:N on its own.Casprings (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable enough that I'm not going to ask you to revert it or anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll soon know if the general feeling here is that it is notable enough for a split, because I have AfD'ed it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A depressingly innevitable waste of time. Artw (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel pretty good it will pass AFD.Casprings (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting sex allegations into summary style and age of consent

This edit (which lacked any explanation), reverted my attempt to put this stuff into summary style. Is there any reason, User:Signedzzz? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section is about right as it is. zzz (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at WP:Summary style? If we want a more extensive section here at this article than a simple summary, then updating and discussing will become more difficult, because we’d have to do it at two different articles redundantly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple summary, IMO. It's about 1/5 the lenght of the linked article, by the way. Seems about right to me. Any shorter and you would be removing basic information. zzz (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called summary was sanitized, and adding "...above the age of consent" is editorializing. I agree with Signedzzz that the original section is about the right length. It's a well rounded summary of a fairly complex sequence of events. It does need some work for style and tone though.- MrX 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It’s editorializing to follow reliable sources by indicating that no statutory rape could have ever happened with these women? To indicate that they may have been legally permitted to engage in sexual activity? You must be joking. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already explained several sections above, The Washington Post says that Moore pursued the 16+ year olds, not that he had sex with them. Please let me know if you are aware of a source that says otherwise.- MrX 23:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what the summary said: "Multiple other women described Moore pursuing a romantic relationship with them when they were above the age of consent, aged 16 to 22." Pursuing a romantic relationship implies seeking sex, or at least very strongly suggests it. Inserting "age of consent" is therefore not sanitizing, or editorializing, but rather is adhering to reliable sources and WP:BLP. I can only hope that you do not want us to imply Moore may have been engaged in attempted statutory rape in cases where he clearly was not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide RS that regularly add the fact that they were above the age of consent. If most RS don't report about that..then it shouldn't be included. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Galobtter:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only mentioning the ages of the ones he pursued romantic relationships with gives the impression that all the woman he pursued were above the age of 16. The lead paragraphs really need to be rewritten to make all this clear: how many accusers, the timeline of things (the washingtonpost story broke first then more stories came out) etc and the ages (the fact that the youngest was 14) should be clear. Then this can be included, assuming due weight. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 04:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Addendum: thought this was the spinoff article, and someone has added the lowest age of 14, but we were discussing the same thing there so it's still relevant. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 04:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just striking that all out. Have added it to the spinoff article for now. Can be added here if it is not already there. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 04:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in this BLP yet, will add later today. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to add category

At the very bottom of the page can someone add Category:Roy Moore? 100.12.206.41 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention That Moore's Lawyer Indicates Yearbook Inscription May Be Forged Removed?

An addition I made yesterday describing, in brief terms, part of Moore's lawyer's argument for the yearbook inscription possibly being forged was removed by Volunteer Marek, with the description "undue and untrue."

If the accused's lawyer is casting doubt upon the veracity of an inscription supporting one of the three main allegations (as the Chicago Tribune has reported), and thus giving reason to think that the allegation itself might be fabricated, this is highly relevant. If there is disagreement over the correctness of Moore's lawyer's reasoning, then the appropriate remedy, I think, is to add content citing sources specifying the reason for doubting his reasoning, not by deleting the reference to reasoning itself. Please do comment if you disagree.

Unless there is a consensus that the Chicago Tribune's reporting is incorrect or that Moore's lawyer's logic is so obviously false that it's not worth mentioning, I plan to revert the deletion. This content has also existed on the "Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations page" for quite a while without, to my knowledge, being disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largest Cardinal (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's lawyer wants to "cast doubt" on an accusation, there's no need for an encyclopedia to assist in that effort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By that same reasoning we shouldn't even need to be mentioning the sexual assault scandal on Wikipedia: "If someone, the women, wants to "cast doubt" on a candidate's character, there's no need for an encyclopedia to assist in that effort." In all seriousness, we mention the sexual assault (and even the not-illegal teenager dating) allegations on Wikipedia because they are plausible. But we should also mention the possibility that the yearbook signature was forged, because it is plausible. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The women in question are not speculating; they are describing what happened to them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, though I'd add the words "if true." I think it's important we don't let a decision, on our part, to believe one side or the other, have an effect on what we think warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. If anything, we should be very cautious, in general, given the risk of libel and the presumption of innocence, to provide as much evidence discussed in reliable secondary sources of an accused persons innocence as is possible and reasonable. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Moore's lawyer is not an objective source, so his opinion is not especially useful for an encyclopedia article. There is no need to lead our readers down the path of speculation, especially given the fact that there are now eight independent accounts.- MrX 18:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, there are only, at present, four accounts of anything illegal (Corfman, Nelson, Johnson, Richardson (regarding the forced kiss)). I agree that Moore's lawyer is not an objective source, but the argument he makes is based on publicly available information (the image of the yearbook inscription), available for anyone who wishes to examine. I've talked with three people in person about this, all of whom found the lawyer's argument quite noteworthy. Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was no allegation of illegality regarding Richardson (sources say “forceful” not “forced” or ”forcible”). If the yearbook is mentioned in this article, then a brief mention should also be made that its authenticity is being challenged; it’s in the headlines of several reliable sources like this one. But, as I’ve said, this section is way too long given that we have a main article elsewhere. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Largest Cardinal: Moore's lawyer's argument might be perfectly valid, but if others are not making the same argument, then I think it would be WP:UNDUE to include it in this article.- MrX 19:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moore himself is saying it, never mind the lawyer. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind the problem is that this is worded in a way that sounds speculative. We don't deal in idle speculation. If someone connected to this business actually comes out and flatly says the year book message is a forgery, and that accusation is repeated in multiple RS sources, then I'd support including it. But this doesn't cut it. For now I think it should stay out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Moore&oldid=810979464"