Talk:Roy Moore

Incorrect information on high school attended

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

Sexual abuse allegations - revision proposal

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

I suggest a rewrite. Something like

Current version

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That concern is addressed in the proposed version above. There's no reason to include detail about where Moore first met the girl.- MrX 22:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important to include Phillips's accusation.

Jaime T. Phillips described a sexual relationship when she was 15 and Moore was 45. Phillips says that Moore impregnated her, then forced her to go to Mississippi to have an abortion.

You also forgot to include the very serious charge made by Jaime Phillips. She has made a credible claim that Moore had an affair with her when she was 15 (and he was 45), got her pregnant, and took her across state lines for an abortion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.81.209 (talk • contribs) 21:52, November 29, 2017 (UTC)

The accusation was a fraud. If it belongs anywhere, it would be at Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations. O3000 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. How is it even possible to know about this accusation and not know that it's a fraud?- MrX 22:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore co-authored course saying women shouldn't run for office

https://articles.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/study_co-authored_by_roy_moore.amp - should possibly go under Political Beliefs? Artw (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disgusting as that is, the course appears to have 28 hours of lectures and another person gave that one. O3000 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems like guilt by association. Is there any proof that he had input or provided direction for the section the other lecturer taught? Txantimedia (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He is a listed author of the book. Artw (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Is he the author of all the content in the book? If so, does the book include the content in question? If so, then it's relevant. Otherwise, I think it's guilt by association. Txantimedia (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

According to Amazon, there are four authors of the book. Law and Government: An Introductory Study Course Paperback – October 18, 2011 by Doug Phillips (Author),‎ Dr. Joseph C. Morecraft (Author),‎ Chief Justice Roy Moore (Author),‎ Dr. Paul Jehle (Author) Without evidence that the book includes what the electurer said and that Moore authored that section, I think it's weak tea. Txantimedia (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And he may very well believe it. But, it's too weak a connection unless there is a statement of his supporting the content of that lecture. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I"ve been looking for one, unsuccessfully. Plenty of cites for his views on homosexuality, but nothing so far on women in politics. The ThinkProgess article that all this is based on doesn't state that Moore authored the content or endorsed it. Txantimedia (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The co-authorship indicates an active hand in collating the course, at a minimum I'd call that an endorsement of its contents. Artw (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

People generally don't attach their names to very obviously controversial statements like this if they have a problem with them. Agreed that this is at least an endorsement. --RevivesDarks (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that the origin of the story is ThinkProgess coupled with the fact that there is no independent confirmation that he has ever expressed these views. People often attach their names to things that they later regret. Claiming that he endorsed the view assumes several facts not in evidence; that he was aware the view was expressed in the book and that he agrees with it. When people are asked to contribute chapters to a book (as I have done), they should be aware of the general tenor of the book, but may well not be aware of the details in the book. That is certainly the case with me. I wrote one chapter in a book and have only read excerpts of the other chapters. So far, I'm not seeing RS reporting this. The only sources I have found are Think Progress, AL.com, Huffington Post and Independent (listed in the order they published). The first two are left-leaning sources that need to be supported by more independent and reliable sources, especially for BLP (poilitics). The latter two I don't know a lot about. I would want to see if WaPO, WSJ or NYT pick up the story with more details. At least confirming that Moore was aware of the content. Txantimedia (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/01/exploring-the-radical-roots-of-roy-moores-theocratic-christianity/ - Exploring the radical roots of Roy Moore’s theocratic Christianity Artw (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've never even heard of Rushdooney. I don't attend any church. Don't hang out with Christians. (Some of my friends are Christians. Some are communists.) Yet some of what the article describes as Christian Reconstruction are things that I believe in; smaller government, the role of the family, the belief that expression of belief in a God is not a violation of the Constitution. So, according to this professor, I would be one who is influenced by someone that I've never heard of and by thoughts and ideas that have never been expressed to me by anyone. Again, this is smearing with a very broad brush. I do no think it belongs in an article about Moore. That's my opinion. I have yet to see any direct statement that Moore has expressed agreement with these claims. In fact, that is implied but never proven with any adduced evidence in the article. Txantimedia (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/republican-women-in-alabama-sound-off-on-moore Republican Women in Alabama Sound Off on Roy Moore Artw (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it has now risen to the point that it merits a mention. Why don't you suggest some verbiage here? Perhaps a subsection under 2017 Senate special election? Txantimedia (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's a guilt-by-association beat-up. It certainly shouldn't be implied that this is Moore's belief. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm, however, because of the political ramifications raised in the New Yorker article, I think it should be included in the article. I was expecting Artw to put something up here that we could work on together. I'll try to put something together. Txantimedia (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed subsection under Special Election

Government course controversy

On November 29, 2017, a story broke that Moore was a co-author of an evangelical Christian government and law course that taught, among other things, that women should not run for office and, if they did, men should not vote for them. Although no evidence indicated that Moore had written that section of the course, the story impacted voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker. According to the story, some voters have changed their minds about voting for Moore, although others are unmoved.

References

Thoughts? Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Wait a moment - who's changed their minds about voting for Moore? None of the critics cited in the article were going to vote for him anyway. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be reworded. One said she was "prayerfully considering voting for Doug Jones" but did not say if she had previously planned on voting for Moore. Another said she was never going to vote for Moore, but she changed her mind from not voting to voting for Jones. So perhaps reword it like this: some voters have changed their minds about voting or about who they would vote for, although others are unmoved by the controversy. Txantimedia (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a good proposal. Volunteer Marek  02:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it still seems like a beat-up. There is nothing in the article that suggests it's having an impact on votes, as one critic lamented: "BeShears told me that she fears that this latest revelation will have a marginal effect on the vote." StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, how about this? some voters have changed their minds about voting or about who they would vote for, although others are unmoved by the controversy. Some think that the controversy may have little effect on the outcome of the race. if editors think it's still not worthy of inclusion, I'm not opposed to waiting for more reporting on the story. Txantimedia (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is still with the preceding sentence: "the story impacted voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker." It would be fairer to say, "the story had little impact on voters in Alabama..." StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, how does this look?

On November 29, 2017, a story broke that Moore was a co-author of an evangelical Christian government and law course that taught, among other things, that women should not run for office and, if they did, men should not vote for them. There is no indication that Moore wrote that section of the course, and the story appears to have had little impact on voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker. Some voters have changed their minds about voting or about whom they would vote for, while others appear to be unmoved by the controversy.

References

Txantimedia (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I still don't like it. You're extrapolated from one to some in the last sentence. Also, I think it is fairer to say "Moore did not write that section of the course" instead of "There is no indication that Moore wrote that section of the course". StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can say that. The sources haven't said whether he did or not. Do you know otherwise? Txantimedia (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it was a series of audio lectures on CD. As the original ThinkProgress article made clear, the offending statement was in a lecture by William Einwechter. StAnselm (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I knew there was a book, and I missed that it was CDs. That changes things. I'm not convinced this needs to go in the article now. It's clearly a guilt by association smear, and it appears to have had little or no effect on Alabama voters. Txantimedia (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sooo... if we had to mention it (and I still don't think we do) it would be something like:

On November 29, 2017, a story broke that Moore was a co-author of an evangelical Christian government and law course that taught, among other things, that women should not run for office and, if they did, men should not vote for them. Moore did not produce that section of the course, and the story appears to have had little impact on voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker.

References

Still looks like a massive beat-up (unlike the sexual abuse allegations, of course, which now constitute a critical part of Moore's career). StAnselm (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Am broadly okay with this wording. I guess the date is okay being there if it;s part of the election coverage, not entirely sure that's the right placement. Artw (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm for including this, so I think we should let it sit until/unless more develops from it. Txantimedia (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nitpick: I have changed all uses of "November 29th" to "November 29, 2017" per Wikipedia style guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sufficient coverage that we should cover it somehow, I went and added the suggested version. We can always move it out of the elction subsection later. Artw (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose including it - especially given the new information that someone else contributed that material. There does not seem to be consensus here to include it. I count three saying to include it and four (now including me) now five saying not to. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Since Moore did not author the course material about women (unless it was his job to review/approve overall course content), it probably doesn't belong in his BLP unless its widespread reporting becomes a salient factor affecting the election, drawing appropriate secondary source commentary, etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This book[1] was authored by a pastor, a rabbi, and an imam. I don’t think you can attribute the words of one to another. I also have a book by Julia Child and Jacques Pépin. They don’t agree on everything. O3000 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why no "Luther Strange" in the lead?

Moore defeated Luther Strange in the GOP primary for Strange's Senate seat, but Strange is not mentioned in the lead. That is strange. I suggest we insert Strange as follows: "During the Senate race, after Moore had defeated incumbent Luther Strange for the Republican nomination, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls.[3]" The cited source says, "Sen. Luther Strange, whom he defeated this fall in a runoff election.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Mike Lee (American politician) is the only current US Senator to have defeated an incumbent in a primary, and Bob Bennett is mentioned there. Sam Brownback's article doesn't mention Sheila Frahm in the lede. Considering the massive amount of other information to include, I don't think Strange needs to be mentioned. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

We absolutely should not connect the primary defeat of Luther Strange and the sexual assault claims against Moore. To do so would imply that the two are somehow connected events. Mentioning Strange in the lead would be trivial and, well... strange. But if it is included, it needs to be separate from the sexual assault allegations.- MrX 00:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)