Talk:Roy Moore

Statements made about Putin edit quote with additional word

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

I've deleted it. It's not in any source I've examined. I've given my rationale in the reason-for-edit section, but to repeat: It is semantically empty, syntactically impossible, and pragmatically confusing. JohndanR (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Birther sentence in lead

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

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

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

.

- MrX 🖋 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. What sort of drug are you on? The title of the article, source 23, is, Report: Trump continues to question Obama's birth certificate. I have no clue where you pulled that article from. But it should've been pretty obvious that this was the article I was talking about considering the fact that it comes after the sentence in question. Display name 99 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not very good drugs because you're still giving me a headache (Bazinga!). Cite #21 is for a The Hill article that cites the CNN article in the relevant section.- MrX 🖋 17:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad comeback, but the "Bazinga" sort of downgraded it. Anyway, so one of the three sources links to a source which mentions Trump. Do you have any idea how long our articles would be if we included everything not only in the sources but in articles linked to by the sources? Can you explain to me how that's relevant and why we need to include it? Display name 99 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should hear from other editors. I will not revert again because I don't consider it an especially important bit of information.- MrX 🖋 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Look above at the section "Birtherism." One editor already raised his concern over it. I'll wait a while longer, but if in, say, 12 hours, nobody else comments here, I'm probably going to make the edit myself. Doing so would also involve removing the CNN article that I erroneously thought you were referring to originally because it fails to mention Roy Moore. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Source 23 should be removed because it doesn't discuss Moore. Moore's doubt about Obama's eligibility is lede-worthy because he went beyond others who also expressed doubts -- his doubts appeared in a court's opinion. --Weazie (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Weazie, I'm removing that source based on your comment. However, nobody here is saying that Moore's doubt about Obama's eligibility should be taken out of the lead. The question is over whether Trump's birtherism is worthy of being mentioned as in the phrase "along with Trump." I say no. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

It is a false claim. It has been proven to be a false claim. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The White House release an image of a certified copy of the long form birth certificate. What more do you want? Meters (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources have said the said the claim is false; that's all wikipedia requires. --Weazie (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

PC protection

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

Lawsuit against Sacha Baron Cohen

Numerous news outlets are reporting this: should there not be a mention somewhere in the article of the lawsuit and possibly the originating incident? The BBC, CNN, the Guardian , the New York Times, the Washington Post, even Vanity Fair!

That's got to be enough to be start with, more available all over the place (WP:LMGTFY: roy moore sacha baron cohen) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought about adding this material, but the reality is this lawsuit will likely be dismissed. Filing a losing lawsuit may not be article worthy, especially considering how long it already is. Weazie (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oddly, it's not in the Sacha Baron Cohen article. I'd say that's a better spot. It's well covered. But,as such lawsuits are routinely dismissed, I'd wait before adding here. Then again, I wouldn't argue against an addition. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

False flag operation

We should probably mention the false flag operation by some Democrats during the Senate campaign, which made it appear that Moore's supporters favored the prohibition of alcohol in Alabama. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/politics/alabama-senate-facebook-roy-moore.html AxelBoldt (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw this today and agree in principle. But, I'm struggling to come up with NPOV text from one source. Any suggestions? O3000 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Why would that belong on this page, as opposed to 2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama? Dyrnych (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Unsupported claim of segregation support

The current version of the article describes Moore as "an advocate of far-right politics, including segregation". While the sources supplied certainly justify far-right, the only mention of segregation in any of them is the mere fact that George Wallace won the state on a segregation platform. So far as I can tell, none of them include even the suggestion that Moore endorses it, much less proof. Unless someone can find it in there, I'd suggest removing the "including segregation". 135.180.163.113 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Looked through a lot of sources. He has a lot of support from and connections to white supremacists; but I can't find a good source that comes right out and calls him a segregationist. He did come out against an anti-segregation amendment; but said it was the taxing part that bothered him and that it wasn't needed as the courts had settled it. I don't like the explanation -- but it's plausible. I removed it. O3000 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

So here's the affected diff from September 2020. I think this content ought to be reinstated. Moore advocated against removing a provision from the state constitution that mandated segregated schools (albeit this has no effect unless current federal rulings prohibiting segregation were to be overturned). The content just says that he advocated segregation, I suppose we don't know what he thinks at this moment, we can always put this in historical perspective, and we can attribute a statement if there's some objection that the source is not properly neutral. Fabrickator (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Reason for low quality image?

Why is a low quality screenshot of an interview from YouTube used instead of an official portrait (public domain)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamalkemal (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roy moore official portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Roy moore official portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)