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

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)

I think the section is about right as it is. zzz (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, User:Galobtter:

• Walsh, Deidre. “Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne says he'll vote for Roy Moore”, CNN (November 16, 2017): “Alabama's legal age of consent, then and now, is 16.”

• Brown, Melissa. “Roy Moore accuser says he groped her in law office; 2 more women accuse him of unwanted advances”, Montgomery Advertiser via USA Today (November 15, 2017): “The age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16.”

• Blake, Aaron. “The GOP’s Problematic Decision to Believe Roy Moore’s Accusers but not Trump’s”, Washington Post (November 15, 2017): “the legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16”.

• Bethea, Charles. “Locals Were Troubled by Roy Moore’s Interactions with Teen Girls at the Gadsden Mall”, The New Yorker (November 13, 2017): “The legal age of consent in Alabama is sixteen, so it would not be illegal there for a man in his early thirties to date a girl who was, say, a senior in high school.”

• Gore, Leada. “Roy Moore: Could Alabama Senate candidate face criminal charges?”, The Birmingham News (November 14, 2017): “As it was in 1979, the legal age of consent in Alabama is 16. “

• Shabad, Rebecca. “GOP Senate candidate accused of sexual encounter with minor”, CBS News (November 9, 2017): “The legal age of consent in Alabama is 16 years of age, and sexual contact between someone who is 19 years of age or older and a person who is 12 to 16 years of age is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year.”

• Miller, Hayley. “Advertisers Ditch Sean Hannity Over His Coverage Of Roy Moore’s Alleged Pursuit of Teens”, Huffington Post (November 12, 2017): “the age of consent in Alabama is 16”

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

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)

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)

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)

It is not in this BLP yet, will add later today. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The proud 16- and 17-year-old women of Alabama thank you for sourcing the legal (as well as developmental-psychological) fact that they're old enough to pursue sex with any older man they want! --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Nick845, in reply to your question in an edit summary, yes, Moore said on November 15: "I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation." Also, yes, behavior toward a 14- or 15-year-old can be sexual assault whereas the exact same behavior toward someone older is not, because of the age of consent. Sexual contact between Moore and a 14 year old would be a felony under Alabama law, punishable by up to ten years in prison. So, I disagree with your edit to this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The women in question are not speculating; they are describing what happened to them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

@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)

Moore himself is saying it, never mind the lawyer. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Objective3000: "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." The Alabama Board of Bar Overseers may dispute your point that there's nothing unusual about an ADA representing himself in writing as a DA. Can you cite any precedent? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The "bar" probably doesn't investigate a guy chatting up a pretty barmaid, or examine what an ADA writes in a teen's yearbook. There's plenty of precedents for stupid human tricks. O3000 (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(←) @Objective3000: No, the bar very often does examine what an attorney writes in representing his qualifications to “teens”. See, for example, “Malchman Disciplined”, MIT Crime Club, May 5, 2010. “Brooklyn lawyer Robert Malchman ’85 … has been disciplined by the Mass. Board of Bar Overseers for misrepresenting himself [to MIT students].”

     Malchman, claiming to be “a member of the Massachusetts … bar …,” advised the student authors of “vulgar items published … in the Daily Confusion” that “if [you] continue to express [yourselves] in this way … [you] will be fired and possibly sued.”  (Op-Ed.) 
     … Assistant Bar Counsel Jane Poldolski reviewed Malchman’s statements, determined that his conduct violated Mass. Rules of Professional Conduct R. 5.5, and ordered him to cease identifying himself to the public as a member of the Massachusetts bar.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As Mr. Moore's counter-allegation of forgery has reportedly been denied by the original allegator (allegatrix?), I think we want to mention both denials, per PUBLICFIGURE. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? From what I've read, her lawyer has skirted the issue and refused to answer. I do not recall reading that either Nelson or Allred has issued a flat denial of the forgery issue. Txantimedia (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: Point taken. So how does this sound?: "Nelson did not deny forging the signature." --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I think that's perhaps too strongly worded. AFAIK, Nelson has not taken a position on the veracity of the signature after it was challenged. Perhaps Nelson has not been questioned on the issue of the forgery. Her attorney has not responded to repeated requests to verify that it is authentic. But that should definitely be cited by RS. Txantimedia (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The lawyer said that Nelson would be willing to testify under oath if Moore also testified under oath. The lawyer cannot testify as to the provenance of the signature as she wasn’t there; and to suggest that she skirted the issue would be a BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

IANAL, but I believe lawyers can make representations about their client's claims. However, the wording that I suggested said nothing about Allred "skirting" the issue. When asked directly by Wolf Blitzer whether or not the signature was authentic, she demurred. If you want to call that "skirting", that's fine, but the statement is still factual and based on RS. I do not deny that I used the word "skirting" in the context of this discussion, but that is not the wording that I suggested for the article. Txantimedia (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Lawyers are also allowed to lie. But, the simple fact is that the lawyer has absolutely no way of personally knowing if the signature is authentic. Thus, she shouldn’t answer the question. So, why would you add to the article that she didn’t answer a question which she couldn’t possibly know the answer to? It is suggestive. Now if you can find someone present at the time of the signing to answer the question, someone actually capable of answering the question; that would be fine. O3000 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically, if I understand what you are saying, even though this is a RS and even though this is being reported, it should not be included because the lawyer could be lying. Journalists could be lying too. So could all the accusers. or some of the accusers. Or none of the accusers. So could Moore.

Are we supposed to use RS in articles or not? ISTM, if the information is relevant to the story and comes from a RS, it should be included. You're arguing that even though it's a RS and even though it's been reported, it cannot be included because the lawyer isn't a first-hand witness to the facts. On that basis, the only information that could be included in the story would be direct statements from the accusers. But even they could be lying. We couldn't even include Allred's statements, because she is not a first-hand witness. Also, we should take Moore at his word, that these things never happened, because he is a first-hand witness. At this point, I'm so confused I no longer know what to say. Txantimedia (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017 - Removal of using "far-right" to compartmentalize what is claimed to be his politics

The following paragraph should be corrected to be relevant only to the facts. "Far-right" references should be removed as this is not fact. It is part of a larger and false compartmentalization of what is said to be the political "right" (which also applies differently in different countries and regions other than the USA) and is meant (in the USA) to be associated/synonymous with the Republican agenda, certain to suit the narrative of those opposed to the Republican agenda. Even though the terms "left" and "right" are used by many, what is associated to whom with respect to these terms (and the "spectrum") has always been highly debated. As such, this is yet another reference in many articles that should be corrected.

Moore is an advocate of far-right politics.[7][8][9] He earned significant national attention and controversy over his strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim, and far-right views, his belief that Christianity should order public policy,[10][11] as well as his past ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups.[12][13][14][15][16]

The paragraph can simply be stated in the following manner:

He earned significant national attention and controversy over his anti-homosexual and anti-Muslim views, his belief that Christianity should order public policy,[10][11] as well as his past alleged ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups.[12][13][14][15][16] 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done -- please make an edit request only once there is consensus for your proposed edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And how was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus? I don't think so. The references in that first sentence do not apply, as there is never a definition of "far-right" that is in anyway non-contradictory and therefore does not need to be used here. The paragraph professes what it professes just fine without trying to lazily associate "right" or "far-right" (as what happens with usage of "left" and "right").— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.122 (talk • contribs) 20:19, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is in the references. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps the references should be removed per WP:NPOV. Far-right is an opinion, not a fact, and has no place in Wikipedia articles any more than far-left does. Txantimedia (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is a fact, according to our sources. The Atlantic calls it hard right, but the meaning is still the same. - MrX 01:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Far-right is an opinion of those sources. It would be the same as reporting a story where a man killed a bunch of people and reporting that he was crazy. Without the qualified diagnosis of a psychiatrist, the appellation is an opinion. I don't think it's correct to claim that simply because an RS expresses an opinion, it therefore became a fact. Txantimedia (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RS are not opining that he is far-right. They're describing him as far-right. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Your comment is correct. And as far as we know, Moore is proud to be characterized by mainstream authorities -- and Wikipedia -- as "far-right". (Just don't say "neoconservative"; he's not a neo-conservative.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: No, your comment is a logical fallacy and is circular. "They're describing him as far-right" does not define what the "far-right" actually is, as such it's a compartment used for opinions from some people's superego's who perceive what they want to perceive the "right"/"far right" to be, same can be said with the "left", but we are talking about this case here. What is attributed to being "right" and "left" are opinions, and have become quite inaccurate and contradictory over the decades.

@MrX: As Txantimedia had stated in responses above, the references are OPINIONS and attempts by those writers/editors, in my opinion, to trivialize, marginalize and then compartmentalize into a bucket of "far-right". It is NOT a fact by any standards. The New York Times had an op-ed on Charles Manson (who had died in jail recently) and how he apparently began the "alt-right" (whatever the heck that is, same questions as what is the "right"/"left"/"far-whatever", no one knows, history then becomes revised to suit political agendas and all is obfuscated for the next generation to further such ignorance of the subject). Totally ridiculous to cite that op-ed, but from those who defend the references citing "far-right" this would be ok. The person who wrote the op-ed clearly has no ground in history, for that matter. Would also it be ok to cite the recent Newsweek article comparing Charles Manson and President Trump (their manner of speaking to their "followers")? This can be interpreted to be totally bigoted, as it is clearly leaving out other obvious comparisons, such as President Obama and his speaking to his "followers". A lazy, biased article, yet someone could cite it and say it's a fact "according to our sources".

The overall point here is that the edit of that paragraph in question serves the same information and purpose, without trying to compartmentalize Roy Moore's views into something that is perceived with such inaccuracy and sometimes intent to slander/libel groups of people perceived to be in those compartments. The world isn't like that. History should not be revised, and neither should the history of political parties in the USA. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

---

I have been threatened to be blocked by Nomoskedasticity who wrote: "Keep this up and you'll end up blocked." , why? It is because Answer=yes was toggled to 'no'? Now, this might be my own misunderstanding of what "answered=" actually refers to (is it simply because ONE person replied, in this case Nomoskedasticity, I don't see why that means it's answered, but if that's the technicality used...)

Anyway, The original reason given for the toggle back to 'yes' was "This isn't going to be implemented without consensus". I responded by replying, "And how was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus?"

My response stands on it's own. "Far-right" is not a factual term and does NOT have a consensus. It seems quite prudent and fair to simply make the proposed edit, removing those particular terms and leaving the rest for others to view and review. Using "far-right" only serves to obfuscate ideologies and perpetuate the ignorance that exists around using that term. Did those sources define or point to a source of what "far-right" is? No. And I highly doubt they would be able to discern what is "right" and "left" in the first place. Just look at the Wiki for these topics and maybe you'll see. That is, if you can discern what is and isn't. Otherwise, you do not have any expertise in this matter and should leave it to others to form a consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.122 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Sorry, but you don’t appear to be listening to the responses. He is described as far-right by reliable sources. Your comparison to using an op-ed is not on point as op-ed’s are opinions. What we believe are also opinions. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Claiming someone is "far-right", even in a news article is editorializing. The meaning of far-right is subject to the biases of the reader. For example, the German Nazi party is often labeled "far-right" in articles. Yet the Nazi party was a socialist party. If anything, they should be labeled "far-left", but the point is, calling anyone far this or far that is labeling and editorializing and has no place in an article that is supposed to be neutral. This slavish devotion to using labels assigned by RS is nothing more than an excuse to conceal bias. The bias of news sources is often quite obvious, and no news source is free of bias. Nor are they free of error. C.f. NBC's report on the Pinto's expoding gas tank for a blatant example. IMNSHO, ALL labels, far-right, far-left, etc., should be removed from articles, and the subjects of the article should be labeled, if we must insist on labeling people, by their party membership, but even that is so imprecise as to be meaningless.

I have no problem with prose that states, Subject has taken positions that are often called far-right. But stating that Subject is far-right (or far left) is labeling and indicates a POV rather than NPOV. Txantimedia (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• It really doesn't matter if the toggle is switched to yes or no -- no-one is going to implement the edit request when it's plain that there is no consensus for the requested edit. The policy on edit requests is clear in this regard: if a requested edit is disputed, the template is to be used when the dispute has been resolved and consensus has been reached. You may now return to your regularly scheduled bickering. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry O3000, but you don't appear to be listening to my response. These RS are opining within their articles. These sources DO NOT define what "far-right" is, they DO NOT refer to another source as to what it is. It should be clear that "far-right" (and the whole spectrum of "left" to "right") is a compartmentalization of what people perceive to be an ideology, that they would obviously then try to relate to the "right" (yet, another compartmentalization of things perceived to be related to whatever they want it to be).

To both O3000 and Nomoskedasticity, I asked a simple question: How was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus? You did not answer that, NO ONE did and here we are arguing in circular fashion because of it. How is it that there is so much editing by so many others (aside from grammar or structure-based) going on in this article that is semi-protected, where were those consensuses made? Are we talking about consensus that can be within talk pages?

So, how did "far-right" get there in the first place? As my proposal shows, it's totally unnecessary and as I've mentioned here, the term has no grounds and really needs to be removed until it's defined WITH A CONSENSUS.

The first RS is from the "Journal Gazette" and the ONLY instance of using the term "far right" is in the headline, probably to editorialize and get attention (further enabling the ignorance of "right" and "left" comprises of). That's it. That's all folks. So, obviously we can take that amazing RS out as a reference.

The second RS is from "The Atlantic", and they use a term that they called "hard-right". Gee, what is this? It's not "far-right", is there something farther?? Not defined. No clarity as to what they are talking about. Why? Because they don't care and don't know and gee, this can be used as a reference to support a compartment of ignorance that supports the super-ego of partisans (one can only assume)...why is it a reference?

The third RELIABLE SOURCE, as it is called here (by now this has become almost laughable, if these instances were not so seriously pervasive across the wiki community) is from the "Boston Globe", and as in the first RS, this also has one instance of the term "far-right" used in the headline. The headline, that's it.

Now, let's think about what we've seen in headlines and how they are used as editorialize and push opinions into articles from news outlets that were certainly more reliable in past decades than they are now.

All three RS references are totally invalid and do not serve any purpose other than to perpetuate this ignorance of "left" and "right", in this case "far-right". Remove them please, as my proposal suggests a fair solution.

Thank you to the editors/moderators that ARE listening to this. Again, this is not about Roy Moore, it is all about trivializing, marginalizing and then compartmentalizing perceptions of ideologies and viewpoints. Media outlets love nothing more than to have things fit their narrative (and their own super-ego's/world-view) in a THIS and THAT/US and THEM/BLACK and WHITE style. As such, objective journalism has bent greatly to suit the desires of the editors and perhaps the readers desires, to some degree). To those who mock/jest about "regularly scheduled bickering", it's quite sad to see that tone among those who (somehow) have editing admin authority. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that describe Moore's views (or him) as far-right: [1][2][3][4]. Roy Moore has marginalized himself with his extreme views on many matters, so I'm comfortable leaving the text as it is.- MrX 18:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX:I have no doubt you are comfortable with it, because it satisfies your bias. For example, you call his views "extreme". His views are extreme to you, but to others they are not extreme at all. In fact, they are the correct views to have. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include either of these views. They are supposed to be neutral. Just as RS are supposed to be neutral (but obviously are not.) As Special:Contributions/149.101.1.122 has (rightly) pointed out, those views have no place in a Wikipedia article that is supposed to be neutral, and as I have pointed out, no RS is without bias. Using the excuse that RS said thus and so therefore it's acceptable in an article, is a cop-out. It's a subtle way to introduce bias into an article without being called on it. As Special:Contributions/149.101.1.122 has also pointed out, the bias was introduced into the article without discussion and without consensus. The proper thing to do, then, is to remove it until consensus can be reached. Txantimedia (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Let's scrutinize the "plenty of other sources". For example, your first reference is to a Guardian article that includes the appellation thus: The Alabama candidate was already a controversial figure, holding strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim and far-Right views. Clearly, the and far-Right views is superfluous and introduces bias. Moore's views are described as anti-homosexual and anti-Muslim (although i would dispute even those descriptions as introducing bias), but the "far-Right views" is appended to push the description even farther toward the "extreme" end of the scale. Terms such as these are routinely thrown around in an effort to marginalize the views of individuals whose views are considered outliers by the author of the article or his/her editor. Your second source is CNN, which has been repeatedly exposed for its bias against conservatives, and the wording is in the headline, not the article. Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal. Your third source is WaPo. First of all, it's behind a paywall. Secondly, WaPo has a vested interest in promoting their original story regarding Moore. The wording is The movement toward Moore has contradicted conventional wisdom about his surprise win. As he marched toward victory in last month’s Republican primary, many GOP strategists warned that the far-right Moore would become an embarrassment to the party, much as former then-congressman Todd Akin became an albatross after his 2012 Senate nomination in Missouri.. Your fourth sources is The Daily Beast, an outfit known to have a bias. Their statement is As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate.

Note that in all these instances, the sense of the statement is not changed by removing the appellation. For example, As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the Republican candidate. is no different than As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate. with the one exception that far-right introduces a bias into the sentence. Remove far-right from the other three, and the sentences still convey factual information regarding Moore and his views.

It is my considered view that all adjectives describing BLP should be removed for introducing bias. Take, for example, the CNN article introduces several biases by the use of adjectives (highlighted in red) {tq|Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal.}} Txantimedia (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia uses reliable sources. We are not going to ignore WP policies to fit your opinions. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You are not being asked to ignore WP policies. You are being asked to use them with wisdom. If an RS reported the moon was made of green cheese, should that go into an article simply because it's RS? The answer should be obvious. Articles are supposed to use RS AND be neutral. Txantimedia (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A source that would say the moon was made of green cheese wouldn’t be considered an RS by WP. Interesting that you should use the word "appellation" above considering your user name here. With this name, you announce your bias in every edit. In any case, my last comment in this thread. O3000 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@O3000:Last comment for you is fine with me. Your username is "Objective3000" so, let's not call out other's when clearly you have had little substance to add to this section. You should strive to be objective (as an editor?) in arguing topics such as this. Txantimedia is absolutely correct in that just because something is deemed to be a RS, every word and description is to be the truth or a source for articles. My goodness, imagine the world we'd live in (or do we live here already? Where 85-90% of ALL media outlets are of similar bias and 15-10% are of another similar bias, there is NO neutral RS.).

• Anyone who is struggling with the question of whether to use sources like the Washington Post, CNN, the Boston Globe, and the Guardian is invited to raise their concerns at RSN. Obviously enough, I think it's a waste of time -- but there are plenty of editors active on this article who have no difficulty with the idea that these are high-quality sources easily satisfying WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: Your personal views that I am biased, or that our sources are biased, are not advancing this discussion, so unless you have new arguments based on our content policies, I'm going to stop participating here. You're welcome to ask for the sources to be reviewed at WP:RSN if you like.- MrX 20:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not struggling with whether the sources are RS. They are. But even RS can be biased, particularly in the area of politics. I am arguing that the use of the term far-right, in a Wikipedia article, is not justified merely by the fact that RS used it. As I posted below, the use of the term should fit within its use in Wikipedia. IMO, it does not. Furthermore, the question has been repeatedly asked and never answered - how did the term get inserted without any discussion or consensus? Txantimedia (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: You read what I wrote above, and then decided to paste more articles that do not source/ref or even remotely explain what they are describing as "far-right". The subject has "marginalized himself with his extreme views on many matters" is quite the opinion of yours as well. Not fact, not based on anything of substance. And now we must waste time with 4 more "sources" that you googled up. I'm surprised "Media Matters" isn't one of them, as THAT source is somehow used as a RS in Wiki articles; where one should not use the Media Matters source, but rather locate the actual, unedited ref/source that MM was using in their article to discover if it's even usable as a ref/source. Just because a term is in something that is published does not make it valid. I invite you to unpeel this onion and you shall see there are lessons to be learned here. Help advance the discussion, but understand that RS does NOT mean every word and description that an RS uses is with full objectivity. If you don't understand this, the premise to discuss is broken.

There have been studies in the past, but here is a recent Harvard study on many RS (not even a drop in the bucket, but as we can see...), with respect to current politics. The media landscape is quite tilted and therefore people's idea of what is a RS or "neutral" is as well. To assume it's a RS so anything quoted is fine and indisputable because it's simply an RS in the first place. That is absolutely ridiculous and appalling, just beyond the pale of what I'd expect from the ideal wiki editor.

Back to the four new "sources" that supposedly support perpetuating the use of "far-right":

1 - The Telegraph, a UK publication, had one line with the term: "The Alabama candidate was already a controversial figure, holding strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim and far-Right views." As you can see, it's basically the same sentence in the questionable paragraph this section was initially about. Just throw in "far-right" and yeah, gee we all agree. Wrong. What does it mean? We don't know what the UK telegraph means (in Europe this term is associated with Nazism, for one, and is partly the reason why people here in the USA are confused and annoyed by it's usage).

2 - The money.cnn blog post/article simply throws the term into ONE place: "Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal." Any editor in any publication can just say "let's throw in "far-right" here". It still doesn't support what the term is referring to and justify it's usage. Steve Bannon is referred to as "alt-right" (another what-in-the-world-are-you-talking-about term) that is apparently not "far-right" or is it? What is that? Who first sourced it? What did they use to do so?

3 - Washington Post reference you cite is from a blog they have called "Power Post" regarding the sentiments of Senator Jeff Flake on Senate-candidate Roy Moore. It states "far-right" once, here: "As he marched toward victory in last month’s Republican primary, many GOP strategists warned that the far-right Moore would become an embarrassment to the party, much as former then-congressman Todd Akin became an albatross after his 2012 Senate nomination in Missouri." So, once again, the writer of the blog post or the editorial staff decided to throw in "far-right" for good measure to qualify (whatever) and associate him and the GOP together in some internal struggle of "far-right" and GOP (where the party is misconstrued and tossed into the that vast compartment of "right"/"right-wing", apparently also containing vague lines of where "alt-right" and "far-right" and "hard-right" and "extreme-right" begin and end). What does the WaPo suggest "far-right" is? Is it the same as the Wall Street Journal? The NYT, LAT? BBC, Telegraph? German publications? No it's not. It has NO clear boundaries and no definition that has any consensus. Is it related to Todd Akin? I don't see anyone calling him "far-right" in his own wiki article, gee maybe we can ref this WaPo article for Todd Akin to be associated with "far-right" (sarcasm folks).

4 - The Daily Beast reference states: "As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate." Again, no idea what that means to them and it might be very different for people who read it because of lack of definition, no consensus.

I keep asking, what was the consensus for originally putting in that term into this article? What is the reason for it to be used (and any of its sibling terms) into this or any wiki article? Define it, get a consensus first, then those terms could be used. Otherwise, remove it please.149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Follow-up: It seems that Txantimedia has been reiterating my points and vice-versa (therefore, sorry for being redundant to the rest of the community reading this), I guess we're forming a consensus. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Sources don't need to explain terms that are commonly understood. I can't help but notice that these arguments are very, very similar to the tendentious arguments made by Técnico (talk · contribs) and a a bunch of socks and SPAs at talk:Breitbart News. They are no more convincing here than they were there.- MrX 21:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait. User:MrX and others - can someone explain to me why an account from the US Department of Justice is making edits to this article? Especially if this account is using multiple account to sock puppet (which may or may not be true - let me look into this)???  Volunteer Marek  03:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't explain it. I guess it's my tax dollars hard at work.- MrX 12:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

...this may help:

"Since partisan political activity in the workplace is prohibited by the Hatch Act, employees may not use the Internet or any other government equipment to engage in partisan political activities."

- MrX 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Not commonly understood. That's the problem. That's what I was stressing in my responses, there is NO consensus on what these terms are. I don't know who that user is and whatever the Breitbart News talk article had to say. It's irrelevant as you can clearly read what I have written above. What are you implying? A conspiracy? Would you care to try defining "far-right" and "far-left" is for us all then? Or based on a DEFINITION from a RS? If not, the term has to go and I agree with Txantimedia that all sibling terms would also be removed from articles. This helps clarify and reduces obfuscation and compartmentalization which is used to trivialize narratives in politics (in this case).149.101.1.122 (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's approach this from a different angle. The word far-right is used three times in the article. One use, is IMO, a violation of Wikiepedia policy. In the fourth paragraph of the summary, this sentence appears. Moore is an advocate of far-right politics. The justification for it is cites to three articles; an Indiana news organization, the Atlantic and the Boston Globe. The Indiana article is an AP reprint and uses the term in the headline. The Atlantic article doesn't use the term at all. The Boston Globe article is an AP reprint and uses the term in the headline. Headlines are not news. They are designed to attract readers through sensational claims.

The second use is in a subsection with one sentence, labeled Columnist, Moore wrote weekly columns for the far-right website WorldNetDaily from 2006 to 2009.[109][110. This labels WND as far-right. Has anyone ever labeled the New York Times as far-left? I kind of doubt it, but their history could justify its use.

The third use is in a subsection labeled Political Positions. I have no problem with that one, because it's directly quoting the cited article. According to Business Insider, Moore has a "history of far-right and conspiracy-aligned positions" on issues such as homosexuality, race, Islam, and terrorism.[166]

This raises questions for me.

• Is it policy for news organizations to be labeled left or right or far-left or far-right?
• Is it policy for individuals to be labeled this way?
• If things are going to be labeled far-right, should they not at least partly fit within Wikipedia's own definition of far-right? Category:Far-right politics in the United States

I don't see where Moore fits into any of those categories. The closest one is Dominion theology, but I don't think Moore has ever advocated imposing Christianity on US citizens through governmental power.

My position would be that the far-right label should be removed from the first and second instance and retained in the third. Txantimedia (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is policy to described news organizations as they are described in reliable sources.
• It is policy to describe inividuals' political beliefs or stances as they are described in reliable sources.
• Interpreting what is and what isn't far right isn't up to editors, it's up to reliable sources.

 Volunteer Marek  03:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to post links to those policies? I have been unable to find them using your wording. Txantimedia (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I searched for Roy Moore is an advocate of far-right politics on the internet. I can't even find the phrase at clearly biased sites such as Right Wing Watch. Searching for Far-right/far right Roy Moore leads me to tons of headlines, but very few articles that make this claim about Moore. Therefore, I think it would be best if the sentence in the fourth paragraph was changed as follows.

Current

Moore is an advocate of far-right politics

Proposed

Vox states that Moore is "a judge whose political beliefs were once relegated to the far-right fringe of conservatism in Alabama."

The cite would be

References

Unless someone objects, I'm going to make this change. Txantimedia (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you used quotes in those searches as there exist plenty of RS that use far-right to describe Moore. O3000 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please cite the "plenty". Headlines don't count. Cite an article, from RS that uses the term far-right or far right to label Moore. The problem I have is not with the label. It's with the direct statement of the article author. That's why I'm proposing quoting s source instead. Txantimedia (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Refs have been supplied before. But, here's a quick look: BBC:[5], LATimes [6], AP via Boston Globe [7], Washington Post PowerPost [8], AL [9]. And of course I object for all the reasons stated. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I object.- MrX 21:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind stating your reason(s)? Txantimedia (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the current text represents the broad selection of highly reputable sources. It meets WP:DUEWEIGHT and is an accurate summary of the Moore's political positions and activities detailed throughout the article. The text that you proposed attempts to narrowly attribute the idea that Moore's political views are far-right to a single quote in a minor publication. It would mislead readers in believing it's a minor (or even fringe) viewpoint.- MrX 21:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That can be easily overcome by providing additional or alternate cites. Some (but not all) of the cites Objective3000 proffered could be used either in addition to or as a replacement for the Vox cite. My concern is that the statement, as currently worded, puts Wikipedia in the position of taking a stance on a political matter, which it should not do. Per WP:NPOV Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. I certainly think that is the case here, and the article would be better served by putting the words "far right" into the mouth of a source, rather than having Wikipedia state it as fact. Txantimedia (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We are not saying he’s the “best” or “most”. We are just identifying his general political category, as we do with most politicians. O3000 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a biased statement of opinion, no matter how many times you repeat that. This article is replete with examples that any reasonable person of modest intelligence would classify as far-right in the context of 21st century American politics and culture. For example, his wish that homosexuality were illegal is patently far-right. His call for banning Muslims from serving in Congress is far-right. His theocratic bent is far-right. By definition, far-right is the part of the political spectrum that is the most conservative. I think it's safe to say that, among Senators or recent major party Senate candidates, Moore is more conservative than at least 99% of contenders.- MrX 23:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mall manager story removed

Why was the mall manager story removed? It is relevant to the claim that he was banned from the mall. ISTM it should be in the article, if it is to be wp:NPOV. Txantimedia (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Some mall employees and locals recount that Moore was banned. Other mall employees do not recall the ban. That's what the text now says. Seems WP:NPOV and due weight to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that the mall manager's recollections of actions he would have taken carries more weight than the opinions of employees who were told second hand what was going on. Txantimedia (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting WP:BLPGOSSIP policy: "Ask yourself … whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Some mall employees think the manager banned him; some don't. Question to self: Is the mall manager's statement more relevant? Answer to self: No more silly questions, please; the other employees' statements are hearsay... (The point at issue is whether the manager banned him, not whether so-and-so said he banned him.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone has an objection, I am going to restore the mall manager story for the reasons articulated here. I will wait 24 hours for any responses. Txantimedia (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's called for. We can't include every detail... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No, we can't. But, when a claim is included in an article (he was banned from the mall), counter evidence should be included for WP:BALANCE. On the one hand, you have a number of people making a claim from hearsay evidence. OTOH, you have someone who was in a position to know stating that he has no recollection of that. That is a significant offsetting detail that should be included. Txantimedia (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Why was the Reuters story removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Moore&oldid=811376024 Is Reuters not an RS? This STM to be a significant detail, that Reuters has been unable to confirm any of the allegations. IS the story only supposed to detail allegations and not responses to the allegations? ISTM we're getting a lot of non-WP:NPOV going on in this article. Txantimedia (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter says this detail -- Reuters has been unable to independently confirm any of the allegations -- is just a "standard disclaimer". Anyone find a source supporting Galobtter's claim? Does Reuters routinely make such disclaimers? AP? UPI? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Quote with context: Moore’s campaign has struggled since the Post detailed the accounts of four women who say Moore pursued them while they were teenagers and he was in his 30s. More women have since spoken out with allegations of their own.

Reuters has been unable to independently confirm any of the allegations. So they're just saying that the Washington Post outlined these allegations and Reuters is making it clear that these are allegations reported in wapo and not confirmed by them. This is very minor statement with no real significance. Why should one line from one article make it into the article? Especially since this is written in summary style of a longer article. Remember that significant viewpoints have to be reported for NPOV. If numerous publications also have not been able to confirm the allegations, and this has been significantly reported on, only then something about independant confirmation can be inserted into such a summary. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 07:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: In other words, you have found no source supporting the point you made. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want. Shows in weinstein case too and others. In other words, you have found no source to show the significance of the statement. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: No, I just asked you to back up the point you made, by citing a source. I made no other point about the significance of the statement. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I disagree. If Reuters said, We have not attempted to confirm your point would be valid. But what they said was We have been unable to independently confirm. Being unable to confirm is not the same as not attempting to confirm. The word unable implies that effort was expended but to no avail. For example, if I said I did not play the piano, that would imply nothing about my ability to do so. However, if I said I am unable to play the piano, that would. IOW, I see this as a significant statement. I think the cite and statement should be restored. As for your question of why one line should make it into an article, sometimes one line is the most significant part of an entire piece. For example, if a series of accusations were leveled at an individual, and the story said, the accused had no comment, that would be insignificant. But if the accused said, I categorically deny these allegations, that is highly significant. Or, if he said, as Louis C.K. did recently, these allegations are true, that would be highly significant. Verbosity is not proof of weight any more than brevity is proof of no weight. I find your argument lacking in merit. Txantimedia (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hundreds of reports have been published. Yes reuters is a significant source, but this is clearly not the main point of the article. sometimes one line is the most significant part of an entire piece This can be true. But it is clear that this is one unimportant line of many, and that google search shows it's a pretty standard statement made by reuters. If there was a main article - say with the headline "Reuters is unable to confirm the Roy Moore allegations" then it could be included. Reuters itself is not considering it significant so why should we? If numerous publications have been unable to confirm it, that can be summarized as "Numerous publications have been unable to confirm" assuming RS consider that to be significant.Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about your initial comment: This STM to be a significant detail, that Reuters has been unable to confirm any of the allegations.. I asked you to show that it is significant in my reply. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: It may be clear to you. It is not to me, for the following reasons. First, the use of the word "unable" bears significance as articulated above. Second, this sentence was set apart from the preceding and following paragraphs. It stood alone, in the middle of the article. These things don't happen by accident. Reporters and editors choose their words carefully and work to format their articles so that they convey the meaning they intend to convey.

With regard to your repeated claim that this is standard statement and google proves it, no disrespect, but I would prefer that you provide some cites rather than make an unsubstantiated claim. So you know, I have googled myself and not found such evidence. Txantimedia (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Txantimedia I did provide a link to that google search which provides numerous links of evidence - but here are three anyways: [10][11][12]. Exact same phrasing as it is standard. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Thanks for the links. I agree with you. It appears to be a standard disclaimer, although oddly worded. Txantimedia (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: Yeah I've seen it or variations of it in reuters articles a lot. Good to see people willing to change their position! Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting debate topic! But for now, we can easily wait a few more days and see how this story develops. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a standard disclaimer. To pretend that this disclaimer means that the "allegations have not been confirmed" is disingenuous, POV and mischaracterizes the source. It's quintessential WP:TEND. Volunteer Marek  18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:Are you deliberately trying to be provocative? To claim this is WP:TEND is to BE WP:TEND. I'm not sure why you felt the need to insert yourself into this discussion, but in the future, please read the discussion before insulting its participants. Txantimedia (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: In my opinion, the answer to your question happens to be "Yes"; but please note that this prolific contributor has limited his reply to attacking the participants' edits or patterns of edits, not the participants themselves. See WP:TEND (which is, as we know, neither policy nor guideline). So, I advise that you (1) amend your perhaps overly hasty response to VM's reply and (2) carry on with making helpful contributions to this discussion and the article itself. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: You're going to have to help me understand what it is you're asking me to do. Volunteer Marek inserted himself into a talk page discussion regarding an edit someone else did, and accused me of WP:TEND when I never even edited the page. What is it you think I should amend? And how is it that you don't think that he attacked me personally? He wrote To pretend that this disclaimer means that the "allegations have not been confirmed" is disingenuous, referring to the ongoing discussion in talk. No one was editing in a "partisan, biased or skewed" manner. we were discussing the importance of a quote AFTER the edit had been reverted. Once I understood the issue, I agreed with the reverter and he thanked me. Then Marek swooped in and insulted me without regard to the content of the discussion we were having. Txantimedia (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Reuters merely meant that at that point in time they had not independently confirmed that the accusations had been made. It wasn’t a statement by Reuters that they could not confirm whether the accusations are true. Obviously, no news outlet can confirm yet whether they’re true, because it’s basically “he said she said”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: He said that your comment was disingenuous, not that you're disingenuous. VM takes great care in wording his comments. But at this point it looks like the matter can be safely dropped. :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Questioning neutrality/BLP violations

• The claim by Beverly Young Nelson should not be allowed to stand as if her statements are facts. This woman's claims seem specious and in some instances outright lies. Her allegations need to be balanced with what other reliable sources have discovered about her.

For example, she claimed she was in Moore's car behind the restaurant where she worked. She claims she tried to get out of the car but he locked the doors. There were no automatic door locks controlled by the driver in 1977. When this was pointed out she then said he reached over and locked her door. But of course, she could have still opened her door and left on her own.

The signature in her yearbook looks fake and was obviously taken from her divorce papers. She claims the D.A. after the name stood for "District Attorney," but Moore was an assistant district attorney and Debra Adams was not his clerk, as she was when she stamped Young-Nelson's divorce papers and added her initials to verify the stamp in 1999. Not 1977 as Young-Nelson would have us believe.

She has refused to allow any forensic examination of her yearbook.

• Her stepson has called her a liar and her boyfriend at the time said she never told him anything about Roy Moore and he never remembered her having any waitress job anywhere. He does say she was dating someone else at the time while she was dating him, and that she eventually married that boyfriend.

• There are no listings for the campaigns Moore won as a Democrat.

• When he went to West Point he was recommended and accepted from the recommendation of his Democrat congressman. There was no need to then claim that the Republican who followed the Democrat in office needed to confirm anything. The desire to constantly wrap him as a Republican seems an attempt to erase the fact that he started out as a Democrat.

• There is far too much reliance on The New Yorker article. There are other sources that are less biased than The New Yorker which reads like a hit piece. Any claims made must come from multiple reliable sources, not just one.

• The line about admitting to dating younger women seems aimed at confirming he was chasing down young girls as if he were a pedophile/predator, yet no complaints were ever documented or filed, no criminal charges were ever brought.

• As it reads now, the neutrality of this article is questionable. I appreciate that editors are working with developing information and this fellow has, to say the least, an interesting history with questionable behavior, but these allegations must be handled in as neutral a manner as possible. He's not been charged with any crimes. These claims are 40+ years old with no substantiated evidence or corroboration by eye-witness accounts.

• There are reliable sources that have questioned why it has taken 40 years for this to surface and have questioned why now and some have suggested that it was fine when he was a Democrat but not now that he's a Republican with a chance to win a U.S. Senate seat.

Not an expert, not an American, but when I read this through it does not present Wikipedia at its best, which seems to me should be the real goal here. Bodding (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This entire edit is WP:OR and a violation of WP:BLP. I suggest removal. O3000 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)}}

I base my comments on the BLP and RS policies. My comments about Beverly Young-Nelson come from sources. Bodding (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Which ones?  Volunteer Marek  02:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Volunteer Marek for asking and not being reactionary and boxing off my comments. Someone has just pointed out on my talk page that probably the sources I’ve been looking at are likely not acceptable since they are not widely reported in the MSM. But I do recall Wolf Blitzer and Katy Tur trying to get Gloria Allred to answer questions about the yearbook but she instead went on about wanting a senate hearing before releasing anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iGe0xDUkVc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRDFswFPfc

While the sources would not be welcome, nonetheless, my main contention is that the material is being presented as fact when in fact it is not fact it is an allegation, and at the very least the allegations should be coupled with Moore’s denials. Especially as there is a claim about the yearbook that Allred is refusing to allow it to undergo an independent forensic examination by Moore's side, and she cannot say her client saw him sign it. And the law in America puts the burden of proof on the accuser, not the accused. Allred is contending that Moore should prove it’s not his signature. The Wiki article should present both sides, not just one side as fact. Bodding (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

They support the fact that she didn't answer - but nothing else. Also they are not being presented as fact (though may support shortening the details here and summarizing the spinoff article more). Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Local polls show Moore leading, and even AL.com may now be trying to cover itself! "AL.com did not report that Moore had been banned from the mall." Paul Gattis, "Roy Moore Campaign Disputes Reports He Was Banned from Mall", AL.com, November 20, 2017. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually local polls are mixed and give Jones a very slight edge (so close it's not significant, it's basically a toss up) [13]. Also al.com is just reporting that Moore campaign denied him being banned from the mall. So what?  Volunteer Marek  21:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How Are His Political Positions "Undue?"

Can we please remove the "Undue" template from the "political positions" section of this article? Much of that section is just personal quotes from the subject. There is nothing undue about quoting an individual. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous. I don't know when the tag was added. It may have been added by editors who ludicrously claim (see above) that Moore's anti-gay views don't count as 'political positions'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Heading to a noticeboard soon

User:MrX wants the lead of this BLP to say that Moore “did not deny approaching or dating teenagers”. But Moore did deny it as to underage girls. See Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.” So I consider Mr:X to be engaged in pretty blatant POV-pushing in violation of WP:BLP. I have said multiple times already that the plain facts in this whole matter are problematic for Moore and thus do not need to be exaggerated in order to make them problematic for Moore. If we are going to propagandize, it would be better to do so where it’s actually going to make a person look very bad who would not otherwise look bad at all. Okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This page has already been on multiple noticeboards. You may want to try WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an RFC would be appropriate. Has this particular issue been to WP:BLPN? Might that noticeboard produce a reasonable result? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I don' actually care if it says "did not deny approaching or dating teenagers", but I do care about an editors using original research to replace "not underage" with "above the age of consent". I believe you are trying to alter the neutral presentation of this material by telling readers "don't worry, they we're legal. It's all good." You have inserted this material repeatedly without obtaining consensus. How about seeking consensus before adding it in again?- MrX 23:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Moore did not deny approaching or dating teenagers above the age of consent, and you have not suggested otherwise. You’ve just insisted that we truncate it to tell readers that he didn’t deny dating any teenagers at all, which is false. You agree it’s false, don’t you? If so, then perhaps you would be kind enough to remove the falsehood from the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We can probably work it out here without needing a noticeboard. This is what the lede currently says:

During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them, including one girl who was 14.[5] Moore denied the initial allegations of sexual assault,[6] but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers.[7] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]

I agree with Anything that "did not deny" is a bad way to put this. It's very negative, implying that there is something wrong or shameful about it, some kind of guilty admission. Also, "denied the initial allegations of sexual assault" is misleading because it sounds like there were later allegations of sexual assault that he did not deny. Let's rewrite this. How about something like "Moore denied the allegations of sexual assault,[6] but acknowledged that he did approach and date girls who were 16 or over.[7] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]" Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds okay except for one thing: many readers will take it as admission that he pursued young women who had turned 16 but were not yet adults, and thus that he was breaking the law. So I would merely insert “(which is the age of consent)”. I cited a boatload of sources above at Talk:Roy_Moore#Putting_sex_allegations_into_summary_style_and_age_of_consent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I had started to add that but thought I had seen it as being controversial so I dropped it. We could say "he did approach and date girls who were 16 or over - that is, who had reached the age of consent." --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"During his Senate campaign, multiple women accused Moore of pursuing age-inappropriate relationships, one of which would have violated Alabama's age-of-consent laws". I'm not entirely sure which accusations Moore has denied, so I can't suggest any content as-to-that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said above at the start of this thread, see Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, power~enwiki, but that doesn't get to the point. Only one of the relationships was legally age-inappropriate, but several of them were alleged to involve sexual assault and that is the point. Also I don't think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice that he did something illegal. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That would work Melanie. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced he was accused of sexual assault (or if he was, that those accusations were considered credible). The relationship with a 14-year old would have been sexual abuse, not assault. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That’s kind of a separate issue. “Sexual assault” is a fuzzy term because it can be used in different senses. The primary sense is often rape, but other senses include any kind of sexual touching without consent. I agree we ought to be clear about which way we’re using that term, if we use it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide if his getting physical with them amounted to sexual assault or not. The Reliable Sources are calling it sexual assault and that's what we follow. And we don't need to specify the details in the lede. That's what the article is for. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If the reliable sources make clear that when they say “sexual assault” they aren’t referring to rape then we need to make that clear too (unless our purpose is to mislead which it isn’t). Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If they meant rape they would have said rape. The terms are not synonymous. And note that we're not saying he DID it - we're just reporting that claims were made. "During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them". Accusations were made, he denies the assault and underage parts of the accusations - that is the situation we are reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

”Sexual assault” is usually seen as rape and is often defined as rape, so reliable sources use “sexual assault” to mean rape all the time without using the word “rape”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN's original version is fine. Adding above the age of consent is not fine. Is misrepresents sources by undue emphasis.- MrX 23:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one who thinks it’s undue emphasis to tell readers that if Moore dated 16-year-olds that wouldn’t have been a crime. I’ve cited gobs of sources above, and it would occupy all of three words. It would be absurd to discuss “16” in the lead without saying what the significantce of that number is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait a second. Where are we accusing him of a crime in the lead? Are you saying that we should?- MrX 00:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to power~enwiki's suggestion to say "one of which would have violated Alabama's age-of-consent laws". We don't accuse him of a crime and we shouldn't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Mr. X that it does not belong here. TBH the obsession with including it is creepy and borderline apologia for stalking teen girls. Artw (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:MrX, the lead currently says Moore “did not deny approaching or dating teenagers”. That falsely indicates he did not deny dating 13-year-old and 14-year olds, et cetera, and thus insinuates Moore is an admitted criminal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede Paragraph

The arguments about the wording of the sexual abuse / sexual assault allegations are important, but I'm more concerned about the first paragraph: Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American politician and former Alabama state judge known for being twice elected to and twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for failing to uphold the United States Constitution.[1][2] He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, more than the revenue the organization disclosed on its tax filings.

Why is the "Foundation for Moral Law" being mentioned at all in the lede paragraph? Also, the phrasing of the first sentence feels like a WP:NPOV violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what s NPOV about that? It's entirely factual, well weighted and the thing he was best known for up until the sex abuse allegations came up. Artw (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)