Talk:Roy Moore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Incorrect information on high school attended[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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 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….”

     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) 04:17, 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.[1] 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)


  1. ^ Blitzer, Wolf (15 November 2017). "WATCH Gloria Allred unable to deny that the yearbook is a forgery". CNN. Retrieved 21 November 2017. 

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

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] (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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Mall manager story removed[edit]

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?[edit] 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: [1][2][3]. 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)