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 12:31, 19 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.

EDITING WAR ON THE TALK PAGE

What the hell is going on? Who is erasing all the concerns about the objectivity of the main article on the so-called "talk" page? These unseen agents of the Democrat Party have threatened me with taking away my talk "privileges". Are these hidden people hiding behind screen names so afraid of that their point of view cannot survive scrutiny that they have to wage an editing war not on the article itself but on the so-called "talk" page? That does not speak well for their confidence in writing objectively. Shame on them. Maybe the "talk" page should be "locked"? --75.130.91.73 (talk) 12:30, 19 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

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]

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]

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]
If Nelson and Allred refuse to release the yearbook for analysis, or attach conditions to its release, then that might be worth including if the yearbook is already mentioned in this BLP section (that is way too long). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as DA vs. ADA goes, I don’t think there’s anything unusual about a man exaggerating his position to impress a female. And as far as what his lawyer says, {insert favorite lawyer joke here}. If Moore made this claim himself, and the source isn’t Breitbart, it should be included in the sub-article. If anything is included here, it could be as simple as his lawyer suggested it was forged without additional detail. But even that seems iffy since the lawyer himself said analysts can’t examine it from a photo, which is to say it’s pure speculation on his part. O3000 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's true. And good point about it in relation to this article: on second thought, I think it's probably best just to mention that Moore and his lawyer contend that the yearbook inscription was likely forged. But what really supports the argument is that Roy Moore D.A. is precisely how his name was signed on Nelson's divorce paperwork, with D.A. not standing for District Attorney but for Delver Adams, the assistant who would stamp Moore's name. I had previously added mention to that fact on the spin-off article, but someone removed it as undue. I've set up a talk page there to dispute that. Largest Cardinal (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Moore&oldid=811082618"