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 19:43, 16 June 2018 (Liberal bias of article and threats made against me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statements made about Putin edit quote with additional word

Article has the quote as 'Moore has strongly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating that he is maybe "more akin to me than I know [myself]".' The addition of the word "[myself]" is not a part of the original quote, nor is it a part of the quote as it appears in either of the cited sources. It also seems to me that it doesn't add to the quote and may change its meaning.

Should the "Age of Consent" statement be deleted as weasel words?

Articles says: "but did not dispute that he had approached or dated teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama)"

What does "Age of Consent" mean? Since until about 2003 the age of marriage in Alabama was 14, Age of Consent for sexual intercourse must have been 14 in 1974 (assuming that marriage normally involved sexual intercourse). Now if there were laws in Alabama making fornication and adultery crimes, there could be no Age of Consent for fornication and adultery. I think the obvious meaning of Age of Consent has become confused with Defense vs a charge of Statutory rape. But then if statutory rape is the issue, then Roy Moore has not been accused of rape. How did Alabama in 1974 define rape and statutory rape? Did it involve penis-(or foreign object)penetration of the vagina? The question in Moore's case concerns the crime of Indecent Liberties and its definition in 1974. If the editors of this article really do not know much of this due to the difficulty of establishing what the laws were in 1974, then BLP should indicate that none of such statements should be in this article unless there are reliable sources to support such statements. Do the editors really have reliable legal information as to whether there was an Age of Consent in 1974 for touching a woman's vulva through underwear? Should the statement about age of consent be changed to age of marriage = 14? That much seems easy to document. Has any attention been give whatever to how sources define "Age of Consent"? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I believe, though it may seem strange, that the age of consent hasn't changed for 50 years in Alabama and was 16 then in 1974 too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
""Age of Consent" for what? Should not the statement be deleted since there the issue is dating, not statutory rape with Moore. I never heard of an Age of Consent for mere dating. I think what is confused is defense to a charge of statutory rape and the age of statutory rape. Has any secondary source quoted the Alabama law of 1974 to show that there was the concept of Age of Consent, and what that meant in 1974? If the source doesn't refer to the actual law, it is unreliable. And it is altogether unreliable to refer to 2017 statements about what IS Age of Consent when writing about 1974. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Do you have any reliable source that says the age of consent was not 16 in the 1970s? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have found it difficult to get hold of the law itself as it was written in 1974 in Alabama. But whoever makes a statement in the article is the one responsible to provide reliable sources to establish it. Should we not refrain from making statements until we have reliable sources; in this case sources that reference the 1974 Alabama law? I don't know of any evidence that in 1974 "Age of Consent" was a phrase used in Alabama law. 14 years is the undisputed age of marriage in Alabama in 1974. If that is so, then it stands to reason that courting a 14 year old would also have been legal. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Do you have any reliable source that says the minimum age of marriage was 14 in 1974? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Quite easy to find. Al.com for example,"Back in May 2001, a bill was introduced into the Alabama Senate that sought to raise the age a person can marry from 14 years-old to 16. But during a late night filibuster, the bill failed to pass. Lawmakers did not want to raise the age, according to an Associated Press report from the time." As to above statements about "sexual contact" being a misdemeanor, a source which says merely something like that is unreliable, since Sexual Contact is weasel words. If you ask a girl a date or opening a door for a girl, that is a "sexual contact," but irrelevant and adding in evil connotations. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Also from Al.com: "The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail." Many states have confusing or seemingly contradictory laws, and it's not our job interpret or apply them to a particular case. Instead, we reflect what has been written be reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think? When dealing with a Biography of a Living Person, is it enough to establish derogatory material from sources which do not cite the 1970's law, but give their conclusions without such citations? Now take this statement from the article:
"Moore denied the sexual assault allegations,[4] but did not dispute that he had approached or dated teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama)."
As written does it not imply that there is an age of consent of dating teenagers (contrary to fact)? Should the article omit the language "age of consent" since that does not say consent to what? And should the article refer to the age criterion for statutory sexual assault instead? And should the reference to this issue be limited to a discussion of the accusations of Marjorie Leigh Corfman, the only under age girl involved for this issue & be isolated from the allegations about dating (which if concerning decent-dating are of questionable importance? One thing I think I have learned from the discussion of "Age of Consent" is that this seems to be about crimes of rape or sexual assault, without any implication regarding the legality of fornication, adultery, or indecent liberties per se (canoodling). And thus far I have seen no evidence that in the 1970's Age of Consent was a phrase used in Alabama law. If someone has such evidence, I would love to see it. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Age of Consent is not weasel words but either legal phrasing or not legal phrasing. I don't know about the Alabama laws and if this has nothing to do with any legal concept then it should be removed on that basis, but not due to it being "weasel words". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP says, Moore "did not dispute that he had approached or dated teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama)". It's well-sourced and informative, and so it ought to stay, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even understand the argument. Age of consent is a legal term in all 50 states for a century. It really isn't disputable. How can it be weaselly? O3000 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a legal term in the 1970's in Alabama law, then can you kindly provide a reference to where it occurred in the code in the 1970's? Is the concept of "Age of Consent" consistent with laws against fornication, adultery, sodomy, and indecent liberties? The question I have is whether now in the 21st Century writers are taking a contemporary concept and imposing it on 1979. I think that two different concepts are confused: 1) the idea that 2 unmarried adults may consent and do sex without question of crime and 2) when is the statutory sexual assault crime obviated by consent? I well remember a trial in my home town way back when, when a man was tried for the crime of fornication, for which crime consent was no defense. To know the truth about Alabama, it seems to me that we need references in the 1979 Alabama Code to such terminology or evidence that it did not exist then. (PeacePeace (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia Definition of "Age of Consent" implies it should not be used in this article w/out proof of legality

The Wickepedia itself says:

The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts and is thus the minimum age of a person with whom another person is legally permitted to engage in sexual activity. ... The term age of consent rarely appears in legal statutes."
I see two reasons here for eliminating the "Age of Consent" 16 statement from this article: 1) there has been no demonstration that fornication was legal in 1979 in Alabama and 2) the dubious occurrence of the expression in Alabama Law in 1979. However, the age of marriage as 14 seems well established for Alabama in 1979. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Age of consent exists in every state, existed in Alabama in 1979, and is not related to marriage. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And reliable sources attest to this. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to say this; but it appears that the source we have been using for the age of consent in 1979 is wrong. It was changed to 16 in 1995 according to: [1] [2] [3] [4]. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama not georgia Objective3000 Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I'm gonna be hung for that.:) O3000 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, happens. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of accusations

The sexual abuse allegations were made after Moore was nominated, i.e. after the primary. This can be (and has been) pointed out in the lead in three words or less. The only reason I can imagine for not doing so is to give readers the impression that Alabama Republicans nominated Moore knowing about these allegations, which of course would be a blatant lie. Yet we are definitely giving the impression in the lead that may have happened, even though it clearly did not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That detail is not a significant point that belongs in the lead. Also, the wording was jarring. I think it's best to leave it out.- MrX 16:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I can imagine for not doing so is to give readers the impression that Alabama Republicans nominated Moore knowing about these allegations That is so twisted, it's bordering on the absurd, and it shows no attempt whatsoever on your part to assume good faith. (If your worldview is so partisan that you honestly can't imagine a good faith explanation for the edit, how can you hope to edit this article neutrally?) The article is about Moore, not Alabama Republican voters. -- irn (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"it shows no attempt whatsoever on your part to assume good faith" - or follow WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously about both, and still I am waiting patiently for someone to give an even slightly plausible reason why the lead should mention these allegations without saying when they were made. Presumably we mention the allegations because reliable sources say they had a major impact on Moore’s campaign, but we very mysteriously omit to mention which campaign —— the primary campaign or the general election campaign? It’s ludicrous to say that doing so in three words or less would be “jarring”, unless it would “jar” everyone who prefers to believe that Moore was nominated despite these allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we mention the allegations because they are themselves notable. Whether or not they had impact on the election. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are themselves notable, but the lead also very properly describes effects on his campaign: “During this special election campaign for U.S. Senate, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him....As a result of the controversy, many Republicans at the national level called for Moore to drop out of the race. President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election,[9] after which some Republicans withdrew their opposition.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Roy Moore, not Alabama Republicans. The lead is summarizing the article, that is, the noteworthy aspects of the life of Roy Moore, not the decisions of Alabama Republicans. That the allegations came out during the campaign and played a part in his loss is relevant to Roy Moore. That they came out after the primary but before the general is relevant only to Alabama Republicans, not Roy Moore. The reader's understanding of Roy Moore and his life's trajectory doesn't change significantly by pointing out that the allegations came out after the primary.
Also, not mentioning that it was after the primary does not imply that it happened during the primary. It doesn't imply anything about the primary. Indeed, it gives absolutely no reason to think it was either before or after the primary because the primary is irrelevant to the allegation's impact on Roy Moore, and that is what matters to the article. -- irn (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously implies that it may have happened during the primary. Three words, people, you’re doing somersaults to exclude a mere three words.[5] Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because those three words complicate the sentence without adding any useful information. I'm sorry, but your edit was unnatural and not an improvement.- MrX 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unnatural? What’s unnatural is to have a deliberately ambiguous lead, which spends sentences discussing abuse accusations and their effects on Moore’s campaign while omitting that they had zero affect on the primary campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about the guldern primary campaign, except you apparently.- MrX 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: First, please assume good faith. Second, the point of this article is to report the facts as reported by reliable sources. It's not to make Alabama Republicans look good or bad. Your change is minor but also unnecessary. If anything, I think the lede is too long, suffers from WP:RECENTISM and should be trimmed, not expanded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overall tone of the article is too aggressive against the subject -- yes it has a liberal bias. I have voiced my concerns about this on the "talk" page only to have some un-named person threaten me and my concerns erased. --75.130.91.73 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about the lead

The result of this RfC is to oppose both A and B.

With option A, consensus is that this article is about Moore, not Trump, and as such option A should be removed altogether from the lead the changes presented should not occur. There was some discussion about removing the sentence in option A altogether, but that would require another RfC discussion for it to occur. (Amended per discussion below. SkyWarrior 19:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC))

As for option B, the reasoning for its opposition is that the current lead is simply too long, and the amount of detail requested from option B is redundant and not needed.

There is also some discussion that the entire lead needs to be rewritten entirely, but that is outside the scope of this RfC and would likely need another RfC to make it happen. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A. The lead currently says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election,[9] after which some Republicans withdrew their opposition to Moore". Should we edit that to say, "President Donald Trump supported Moore's opponent during the primary, and endorsed Moore a week before the final election,[9] prompting some Republicans to withdraw their opposition to Moore"?

B. The lead currently says, "During this special election campaign for U.S. Senate, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him". Should we insert ", after the primary" immediately before the comma? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey about lead

  • Support A, and support B as proposer, but instead of A it would be fine to just get endorsements (or at least Trump’s) out of the lead as suggested by editors below. Regarding proposal "A", that language was suggested at a noticeboard, and this BLP has a subsection about the primary showing that Trump's support for Moore's opponent was very widely covered by national media. Omitting this from the lead gives the incorrect impression that Trump wanted Moore to be the Republican nominee, and also gives the misimpression that the primary was trivial rather than getting massive national media coverage. Regarding "B", the lead currently implies that the Republican nominee was chosen despite these allegations, whereas inserting three words ("after the primary") clarifies that that's not what happened. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A This article is not about Trump. The support a week before the election is important information, as it made the election a close race. His prior endorsement of Moore's opponent is of little importance to Moore, since Moore won; besides which, it would be misleading and disingenuous to mention it without describing how curiously lacklustre the previous endorsement was, as the article explains. zzz (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A Article is about Moore, not Trump. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: Please do not put words in my mouth. I oppose your proposed wording as it is about Trump solely, I do not oppose all mention of Trump where relevant (e.g. his endorsement.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome for the ping, I have accordingly crossed your name out. I don’t understand your position, but whatever. I guess you want the lead to say Trump endorsed Moore and to omit that he ever endorsed anyone else. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A, Oppose B per established discussion above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all versions The part of the lede on the election is written in narrative form, and needs to be re-written to be in summary form. Simply attempting to monkey-patch the current version for "balance" will not improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 12:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not mention the endorsement in the lead - The information regarding Trump's endorsement does not belong in the lead... at all. Trump's endorsement is something Trump did, and not something Moore did. The lead of any bio article should focus on the subject and what he/she did or does. Including a statement about Trump's actions in the lead shifts that focus away from the subject (Moore) and onto a second person (Trump). Trump's endorsement can be mentioned later in the article, in a section on Moore's failed run for the Senate. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not mention endorsement in lead per Blueboar and power-enwiki. –dlthewave ☎ 13:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A and B, keep Trump's endorsement in the lead - These proposals have already been discussed at length on this talk page and at WP:NPOVN. Trump's endorsement is historically unprecedented in that he inexplicable waited for Moore to be accused of underage sexual abuse before giving a full-throated endorsement for Moore. The lead material, as it's currently written, balances the need for brevity, with the goal of summarizing the important points so that a reader could glean a high-level understanding of the subject by reading only the lead. The lead is the result of collaborative editing and is pretty good as it stands.- MrX 13:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be a damning commentary on Trump’s actions... I fail to see the relevance to Moore (the subject of this article). Hell, Trump’s last minute endorsement didn’t even sway the voters. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's historically significant for Moore also. I can't think of a time in at least the past 50 years where a senate candidate who was embroiled in a serious scandal was endorsed by a sitting president. To leave that out of the lead would create an awkward information void in my opinion.- MrX 17:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it would be really odd to leave that out, I don't think anyone has even suggested it up to now. zzz (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way was Trump’s endorsement significant for Moore? Did it get him elected? Did it prevent his election? Does the information about Trump’s endorsement give the reader any insight about Moore? (I see how it might tell the reader something about Trump... but I don’t see what it tells the reader about Moore). It seems to be more significant for Trump than it was for Moore. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This election is a highly significant part of Moore's career, and Trump's endorsement was a highly significant factor in it which would need to be mentioned in the lead summary. zzz (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way was Trump’s endorsement a significant factor in the election? Did it sway voters to vote for or against Moore? please elaborate. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to make a judgement on that obviously, but it's worth noting that Moore did win the white vote by a significant margin; he still lost, but it was close. The point is, national Republicans were all falling into line and denouncing Moore, so Trump's intervention changed his situation from being a complete pariah outside of Alabama - with all the ramifications of that - to a viable candidate with the support of the President, and the other Republicans who followed suit. zzz (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well said.- MrX 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In other words... Trump’s endorsement had a significance in that it influenced people OUTSIDE of Alabama (people who could not vote in the election, either for or against Moore)? That comes too close to WP:COATRACK for my comfort.... sorry, still not convinced. My opinion stands. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my point was that it has significance (for Moore in particular) beyond just the election. zzz (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally relevant that Trump attempted to prevent Moore from being nominated and failed, notwithstanding that that attempt might (gasp!) reflect well upon Trump. And relevant too that the allegations were not made before Moore was nominated, notwithstanding that that fact would reflect well upon Alabama Republicans. The truth is that the lead is carefully designed to inflict maximum damage on Republicans in general, and Trump in particular. But since Wikipedia allows a majority of editors to do whatever the hell they want, that's the way it is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why it would reflect well on Trump that he attempted to prevent Moore from being nominated in the primary? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. The lead of this BLP says Moore has "racist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic views...[and] past ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups". An attempt to prevent a primary victory by a person fitting that description is an attempt that reflects well upon whoever makes that attempt. Obviously. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that would reflect well on someone who decided that because a politician was "racist, homophobic, antisemitic... etc. etc," such that they were going to support their opponent in the primary, and then if that politician still managed to win, then they would withhold their support at the general election (in order to continue objecting to their incompatible views, etc.) When someone opposes someone in the primary, but then does a 180 and gives them their full support at the general election, it becomes obvious that they weren't withholding support during the primary due to the racism, homophobic views, antisemitic views, etc, doesn't it? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Readers may conclude that, or they may conclude that Trump was deferring to the judgment of the primary electorate who felt Moore was not really guilty of those sins, or that Trump believed the sins of Mr. Jones were greater than the sins of Mr. Moore. In any event, it's extremely unusual for a White House to get involved in a primary and then to have the POTUS-supported candidate lose in that primary. Last time it happened was to Arlen Specter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that the lead is carefully designed to inflict maximum damage on Republicans in general, and Trump in particular. I repeat what I wrote above: That is so twisted, it's bordering on the absurd, and it shows no attempt whatsoever on your part to assume good faith. (If your worldview is so partisan that you honestly believe that the lead is designed to score political points, how can hope to edit this article neutrally?) -- irn (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s extremely naive to believe that political articles at Wikipedia are never deliberately slanted. But it’s admirable that you join me in disliking any such activities. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with keeping current minimal mention of Trump in lede. Artw (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)÷[reply]
  • Do not mention endorsements in the lead - that is not a significant part of the article so does not meet WP:LEAD, and apparently was of no major effect to his WP:BLP as he did not get elected. Allegations coming out after the primary seems more significant to his life of it meant he was the candidate and lost the election -- but I think it can be put lower in the article. Markbassett (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. I don't believe that this level of detail is needed in the lead. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A and Neutral B - The change to A seems to make the thing more confusing and offers information that doesn't seem to help the reader. The proposed change to B seems a little redundant. 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both & remove current text - if anything about Trump's endorsement is included in the lede after being challenged, it should be done using inline text attribution citing Trump's own words in the USA Today article by David Jackson on December 13, 2017, which is linked here: "The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election," Trump tweeted. "I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!". Factual, accurate and cited to a RS. Atsme📞📧 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you can consider anything from Trump to be "factual" or "accurate", especially in this case when it's so obviously self-serving. -- irn (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that Trump made the statement. Quoting what he said about his own position is a statement of fact. Quoting a journalist's or pundit's opinion about what Trump said is not a statement of fact - it's an opinion. Our readers can make their own determination of what Trump said - our job is to present what he said and cite it to a RS - not to discredit a BLP. Where is the factual evidence that supports the allegations against Moore are true? Our readers will believe whatever they choose to believe, and our only obligation is to present the facts (and all relevant opinions in the cited sources) in a dispassionate tone from a NPOV. The opinions of WP editors are irrelevant. See WP:EDITORIAL and WP:PUBLICFIGURE - If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Atsme📞📧 23:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trump isn't denying any allegations here. How is that relevant? This is merely a self-serving statement from Trump, justifying his actions after the fact. Sure, it's factual that Trump tweeted that, but so what? What would that bring to this article? An important part of NPOV is determining what belongs in the article. What do we gain by including a quotation from Trump congratulating himself for something he claims he previously thought but shared with no one until after it had happened? -- irn (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the fact? No, it's updating information - WP:NOTPAPER. Trump tweeted what he believed about Strange and Moore as candidates during the primaries, which is supported by multiple RS and absolutely relevant. He publicly supported Strange and after the primaries had no choice but to support whatever Republican candidate won the primaries. Unlike MSM, WP shouldn't spin an article to promote a particular POV. You said in your comment directly above that "an important part of NPOV is determining what belongs in the article." I agree, but what concerns me is your very biased POV statement about Trump when you asked how I could consider "anything from Trump to be "factual" or "accurate", especially in this case when it's so obviously self-serving." I'm of the mind that such a proclaimed bias works against NPOV. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned but thank you. Happy editing! Atsme📞📧 00:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has a well-established history of lying.[6][7][8][9][10] We cannot consider anything he says "accurate" or "factual" without further evidence. And when he chimes in after an election to congratulate himself for being right and offer a self-serving justification for endorsing a losing candidate, with only an unverifiable claim regarding what he previously thought, there would need to be a very compelling reason to include it. And we don't have that here. -- irn (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't rely on "opinion pieces" (see WP:V) and when we cite RS with known political biases and/or that are defamatory and likely to be challenged, we use inline text attribution rather than generalities, especially in those instances when other RS contradict or challenge the statements - refer to WP:BALANCE. Atsme📞📧 15:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not advocating the inclusion of any defamatory material or anything likely to be challenged or any opinion pieces. My argument is that the quotation you want to use has no place in this article. -- irn (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. I agree with several other editors here that the lead needs to be tightened up. It's simply too long. Both proposals add content that is relatively unimportant. I agree with others that the Trump endorsement sentence should be removed altogether. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both This is a biography of a 70 year old man and the already bloated lead ought to summarize his entire life and career in a balanced way. It is recentism to devote excessive attention to the details of the recent election. There is a separate article about the election campaign. I do not think that it is necessary to mention Trump's general election endorsement in the lead, but if consensus is to include it, brief mention of Trump's primary endorsement of Strange should be made as well. As for the timing of the harassment allegations, I do not think that such a fine level of detail belongs in the overloaded lead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove A, oppose B Remove the line about Trump altogether from the lead; the information can be covered in detail later in the article. That level of minutae isn't needed for the lead section. The line about sexual misconduct allegations can stay as it is, it is sufficient and concise and doesn't need additional clarification in the lead; of course in the body more details can go in. --Jayron32 18:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both: this level of detail is not needed in the lead. Remove all of the endorsements: they really do not belong. Vanamonde (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both A and B are a matter of record and not opinion. (And, of course, everything must be supported by yer ol' reliable, third-party sources.) Is there evidence of causation in A? In other words, did the Trump endorsement cause Republicans to withdraw their objection? We cannot just go and assume something! If reliable sources show causation exists, then we should mention it the way the suggestion has it. Same for B: If the allegations surfaced "after the primary," then this is what the record would state and this is what the lead para should show. Otherwise, not. Quite simply. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both: It is not an appropriate or necessary level of detail for the lead Gumsaint (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit the endorsement from the lede and I'm meh on the second one. I don't see that it makes a very big difference if we note when the allegations started, as it's pretty unsurprising that the cross-party dirt (no matter how true or relevant) started to be flung once the primaries were decided. Even if B ends up getting no traction and I were unfamiliar with the subject, I'd have presumed that the allegations didn't surface until after the primary. As to the first, someone said it best above: This article is about Moore, not Trump. Also per WP:SKYBLUE of course Trump supported the ultra-conservative candidate. We shouldn't need to specify it in the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about lead

Per WP:Lead, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". So, it's not necessary or proper to assume readers will read gobs and gobs of the article and thereby find out that the lead was misleading. I have shortened the lead today because it contained excessive material,[11] but the material proposed here in this RFC is very brief and much more significant than the material I removed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election" - how is that misleading, I don't follow? zzz (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading because it appears to be Trump's first involvement in the campaign, as if he never had a huge rally in Huntsville, and never supported Moore's primary opponent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. zzz (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern that it would be misleading to mention Trump's endorsement while leaving out key facts. My opinion is that a "concise overview" of the overall article does not need to include the Trump endorsement at all, avoiding any misleading statements. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

I've amended my close above after thinking it over. Another RfC should be held regarding the removal of the sentence, if one is interested. SkyWarrior 19:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@SkyWarrior: I have reverted the edit you made to the article. You indicate there is no consensus to make the change indicated by Option A. That's true -- but it doesn't mean there was consensus to remove the entire sentence; that possibility was not part of what was proposed in Option A. There's no consensus at all in the RfC for editing the article in that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Option A that was rejected consisted of changes to the existing phrasing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity and PeterTheFourth: I would like to disagree with both of you. While it is true that there was a consensus to not make the change as proposed in option A, I also saw a consensus to omit the endorsement in the lead, which would in turn result in the removal of the sentence in option A altogether. SkyWarrior 11:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only roughly half of the commenters said Trump's endorsement should be removed. That's not consensus, so the the status quo version is kept.- MrX 🖋 11:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the RfC were about the removal of the text, or presented it as an option, there would be an even discussion of whether or not it should be there. It was not, there was not, and I don't see the RfC which was not about that as endorsing it being removed or being kept, as it's pretty tangential. PeterTheFourth (talk)
  • Aside from me (obviously) supporting removal of the text, if half the editors who voiced their opinion want to remove it, and the other half are divided about what it should say, then yes actually, that is a consensus. It's not an unimpeachable one, but a consensus nonetheless.
However, if you guys want to put that question to an RfC, I'll happily repeat myself there and we can get a clearer picture of the thoughts on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just counted ten editors opining that the endorsement doesn't belong in the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Corfman's defamation suit

[12], [13].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birtherism

Personal life section in article twice, removed the first instance

I have removed the section on Judge Moore's personal life because the same verbiage appeared TWICE in the same article. At the beginning and towards the end. Not only is this unnecessary, but sloppy layout and section design. If a bot restores it, I will wipe it out again, or take it to a higher person at Wikipedia. Sjkoblentz (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birther sentence in lead

MrX, a few things concerning your revert. First, we don't need to include something in the source if it has nothing to do with the article. The CNN article is one of three sources for the birther claim. I read the article. It's literally all about Trump and doesn't even mention Roy Moore at all. As such, the source is totally irrelevant to the article and should be removed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? The title of the CNN article is GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore has said he doesn't believe Obama is a natural-born citizen. The article then goes on to say:

"Moore's comments came three months after then-Republican nominee Donald Trump conceded that Obama was born in the US after pushing the racially charged birther conspiracy for years. Trump endorsed Moore's opponent Sen. Luther Stranger during the Republican primary and congratulated both candidates on proceeding to the runoff."
— CNN

.
- MrX 🖋 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. What sort of drug are you on? The title of the article, source 23, is, Report: Trump continues to question Obama's birth certificate. I have no clue where you pulled that article from. But it should've been pretty obvious that this was the article I was talking about considering the fact that it comes after the sentence in question. Display name 99 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not very good drugs because you're still giving me a headache (Bazinga!). Cite #21 is for a The Hill article that cites the CNN article in the relevant section.- MrX 🖋 17:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad comeback, but the "Bazinga" sort of downgraded it. Anyway, so one of the three sources links to a source which mentions Trump. Do you have any idea how long our articles would be if we included everything not only in the sources but in articles linked to by the sources? Can you explain to me how that's relevant and why we need to include it? Display name 99 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hear from other editors. I will not revert again because I don't consider it an especially important bit of information.- MrX 🖋 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look above at the section "Birtherism." One editor already raised his concern over it. I'll wait a while longer, but if in, say, 12 hours, nobody else comments here, I'm probably going to make the edit myself. Doing so would also involve removing the CNN article that I erroneously thought you were referring to originally because it fails to mention Roy Moore. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source 23 should be removed because it doesn't discuss Moore. Moore's doubt about Obama's eligibility is lede-worthy because he went beyond others who also expressed doubts -- his doubts appeared in a court's opinion. --Weazie (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weazie, I'm removing that source based on your comment. However, nobody here is saying that Moore's doubt about Obama's eligibility should be taken out of the lead. The question is over whether Trump's birtherism is worthy of being mentioned as in the phrase "along with Trump." I say no. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...which promoted the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States" Should not state [false], this should be struck.

Stating "false" here is a definitive statement and one can not make such a claim about this. The argument I have is in saying the claim is false. It's fair to say he "promoted the claim" but not fair to state true or false about this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binary Agent (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a false claim. It has been proven to be a false claim. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The White House release an image of a certified copy of the long form birth certificate. What more do you want? Meters (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous reliable sources have said the said the claim is false; that's all wikipedia requires. --Weazie (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PC protection

Since this article has a problem with persistent vandalism, but not frequent enough to qualify for semi-protection, I have installed Pending Change protection for 6 months. Hopefully that will allow us to keep it under control. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Moore&oldid=846164021"