Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Protected edit request on 18 October 2017

A reasonable edit suggestion. The main image needs to be updated. It looks to have been taken by an 10 year old cell phone. Compare it with his opponent, who has a professional portrait. Judge Moore Roy.jpg is an appropriate, newer, higher quality image found on the page for the special election. This is a commonsense edit, and would lessen the appearance of biased editing. Please update. Thank you. Knighttraba (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I was about to do this but I didn't realize it was full protected. Anyway, see File:Judge Moore Roy.jpg. Knighttraba is correct. This is a higher quality equally free image, and we should be using it. GMG^talk 18:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Nevermind. It looks like all the instances of it online probably ultimately trace back to here, and from what I can tell Alabama isn't special about not retaining copyright of their images. Stupid me thought he had been a federal judge at some point. User:Mélencron, you can probably witch that over to a copyvio. GMG^talk 18:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is no longer fully protected, so please feel free to make any necessary edits. Thanks, Nakon 04:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant positions

Why are almost all of the "political stances" completely irrelevant to his job in the US Senate? Reference should be made to his constitutionalism and conservatism, specifically citing his campaign website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H201840 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a biography, not a resume.- MrX 11:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Insertion of "far-right" and "alt-right" links in lede

A user has repeatedly tried to insert a line at the end of the lead claiming Moore has links to the far-right and the alt-right. Aside from some inappropriate sources (opinion pieces), the cited articles don't support the claim. There are also issues with adhering to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. I hope other editors will be vigilant against this disruptive editing. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's go down the list. First, every cited article - both opinion and non-opinion - mentions links between Moore and the alt-right and the far-right. I've already given one elsewhere; I won't do your homework for you. Second, none of your stated policies conflict with the statement. A statement of his ties is no more biased or inappropriate for the lead than a statement of his views, which already appears, and which actually has a less neutral tone. Similar descriptions appear on the pages of other political figures, with the same kind of citation = e.g., Sebastian Gorka. Finally, someone else has amended the statement to first state his ties to the Christian right. I'm OK with that amendment in the interest of seeking a consensus. If you continue to be obstinate and ill-informed, then I'll keep re-inserting the sentence. Fixed245 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Moore may have "ties" to the alt-right, but (1) alt-right implies far right and is thus a redundant claim and (2) I don't see why this should be in the lead. My suggestion is for the removal of "far-right" and for relocating the fact that his view's have ties to the alt-right movement to an appropriate section discussing his opinions, not the lead. Unless Roy Moore has self-identified with the far right or alt-right, it does not belong in his lead section. Wikimcquack (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Going through the cited articles. The Jpost article mentions "alt-right" in the title, nowhere else. No mention of the phrase "alt-right" in the new yorker, vox, journal gazette pieces. The atlantic piece mentions "alt-right" in reference to someone else, not Moore. That just leaves the wapo piece, an opinion piece, in describing Moore as "alt-right." Seems this designation needs to be removed from the lede, better cited, or rephrased. Also "ties" is perhaps overly suggestive of relationships. Usually wikipedia style is something like "Moore has been linked to the far right by . . . " rather than asserting ties in wikipedia voice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.67.37 (talk)

The New Yorker piece mentions links to Bannon and Gorka, both of whom are alt-right. The Vox piece describes Moore as a "judge whose political beliefs were once relegated to the far-right fringe of conservatism in Alabama," and states a similar link to Breitbart figures. The Journal Gazette piece says, "Far-right view helps Moore in Alabama." The Atlantic piece again describes how the Breitbart universe has rallied under Moore; Breitbart, per Wikipedia, is a confirmed far-right / alt-right organization. There is also this Boston Globe article, this Fox News article, and this Business Insider article. Fixed245 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, the point is that these cited articles mention some connections who are in turn "alt-right" (according to other, uncited sources--but let's ignore that for now). whereas you would use the phrase "alt-right" directly in reference to Roy Moore, in the lede no less. That is what requires external support. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first major source to do that.

I agree with the sentiments here, especially those of User:Gabrielthursday, that the terms "far-right" and "alt-right" should not be in the lede. If a term is to be included, "Christian right" would be the most accurate. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• • I don't think it should be in the lead, namely because it's not referenced in the article proper. This said, a few things. It could be in the lead, if there was a more expansive seciton in the article addressing it. Secondly, far right and alt-right are not the same thing. Both are neo-fascist and nationalist, but there is a substantinal difference in identity. Eccekevin (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• • • User:Eccekevin is correct in saying that alt-right and far-right are not the same thing. There should be a section discussing this. As for not being in the lead because he doesn't say that himself, that's not how we work. This should be in a section in the article and a short summary in the lead. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This may be appropriate as a source? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/the-breitbart-universe-unites-for-roy-moore/541059/ Morty C-137 (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the word alt-right means, but if it means anything other than "conservatives that the liberal media doesn't like", Roy Moore is not part of the alt-right. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In response to your edits, which you improperly chose not to discuss here: the fact that the Post article describes him as alt-right in its headline, not prose, is if nothing proof of a stronger link. The prose is meant to support the headline. Breitbart's active support for Moore, including a spate for articles and appearances at multiple rallies alongside Moore, is stronger than traditional media support. And your purported "consensus" against inclusion belies any reasonable definition of consensus. Fixed245 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Rather than edit war, I've taken this to WP:BLP/N. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I see ten reverts by you on this page in the past week. While there are no WP:3RR violations, I strongly advise you to stop reverting so frequently here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a thought. If you don't know what a word means perhaps (a) start by learning what it means and (b) don't use a strawman claim to attack it, since that strongly signals to others that you're not interested in honest discussion? Morty C-137 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase that. After a significant amount of effort on improving the alt-right article, I'm not sure the word has a generally-agreed-upon definition at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on the consensus in the BLP noticeboard, I'll consent to removing "alt-right" - not because I agree, but because a consensus seems to have emerged. But there's no such consensus - if anything, a consensus in favor of inclusion - for "far-right." That was removed as well, and I added it back. Regardless of your "advice," I won't hesitate to keep that term in. Fixed245 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right redux

There appears to be an effort to include "alt-right" in the lede again. This is very clearly undue. I feel it is a WP:NPOV violation, and possibly a deliberate effort to promote the concept of "alt-right". Discuss it in the section on the 2017 Senate race if you must. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: If it's "very clearly undue", pointing out which part of UNDUE indicates this is a problem should be easy. My reading of it means it's very clearly due, and I'm trying to suss out what I seem to have missed. Given the coverage in highly visible, highly reliable sources (and, hell, even highly unreliable sources like Breitbart), I don't understand how mirroring the Jerusalem Post headline, one that flat-out calls Moore a "rising alt-Right star," is doing anything but informing readers of his politics.

And can I ask? Who do you believe is engaging in "possibly a deliberate effort to promote the concept of 'alt-right'" and what have you seen, behaviorally or otherwise, that's given you that concern? CityOfSilver 17:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Since when does the Jerusalem Post have deep knowledge about American politics that American sources do not? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What, Israeli newspapers should only be used for Israeli issues? Does that mean we shouldn't use American sources for Israeli issues?? That's silly... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

He is notable precisely for being such an extremist, and it's not at all "undue" to note the alt-right angle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part to remove the "If Moore is elected, he is likely to be the most far-right Senator and far afield from even the most conservative Republican currently in the Senate." sentence; I didn't even realize I did that until I re-checked the diffs. I don't feel that referring to him as "alt-right" in the lede is reasonable, especially when care must be taken to note that he doesn't self-identify that way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• The article currently has "Moore is also considered a part of the American alt-right movement, although he does not identify with the term", which strikes me as fair--and I read the local paper every day, and have followed Moore for a few decades now. I don't see any immediate problems with the sourcing. Alt-right is not something he joined, and it might not even be something he knew about until he was asked (I assume he was asked); it's just that many of his positions simply line up with them. BTW who is this big fan of "also"? Can we stop inserting that right after the main verb? Look also at the next paragraph... Drmies (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A possible compromise might be to say something like he’s a “celebrated figure within the alt-right community” (google it) but does not self-identify as such. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Some other takes, which I'm not claiming are reliable enough to be references:

• "Judge Roy Moore, an honest-to-God theocrat" [1]
• "Take Roy Moore. The former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Moore had a history of fringe views and seemed most passionate about matters of religion. But he was very clearly an outsider whom the GOP establishment desperately didn’t want in the Senate. He also had a support base among evangelical voters in the state, and looked like he could embarrass party leaders. So Bannon backed him." [2]
• "Roy Moore—a man best known for hating LGBTQ people, Muslims, and people of color" [3]

I find almost no sources that use alt-right. Considering the source is to the Jerusalem Post, I suspect there are very few that exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, SOMEBODY who feels this inclusion is appropriate should discuss "alt-right" somewhere in the body of the article. The current state of the article, where every negative story from the campaign is discussed in the lede and not the body, is clearly against WP:MOSLEDE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who inserted alt-right in the article to begin with. I actually don't think it's needed anymore, now that we mention his ties to neo-Confederates. It's a more specific and informative term than alt-right, and it probably has more factual backing. Moore is best known for his views on religion and public policy; we've probably reached the point where we're over-emphasizing his views on / ties with racist groups. One sentence, sourced with actual links to neo-Confederates, gets the point across.

Also, there should be an "and" before far-right in "strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim, far right views" (far-right is just another way of saying strongly right-wing, so it should be separated), and there's no reason to start a new paragraph when we mention his birtherism. Fixed245 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"Far-right" is NOT "just another way of saying strongly right-wing". That statement confuses the intensity of belief or dedication to a particular set of views, with the extreme nature of these views. One can be strongly right wing and not be an extremist. Like, say, William Buckley. Volunteer Marek  05:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Ties to white nationalist groups"

This claim in the lead seems to be backed by one instance of him speaking at a Council of Conservative Citizens conference in 1995. I don't think him speaking to one group a single time constitutes gives enough weight to "tie" him to that group, especially not numerous "white nationalist groups," and it should be noted that many other GOP figures including mainstream senators and governors like Trent Lott, Mel Hancock, Guy Hunt were also speakers at the same conference. Congressman Steve Scalise the House Majority Whip also has a similar incident on his Wikipedia page, where it is relegated to the body.

I think the "neo-confederate" wording is more fair due to involvements of his foundation but "white nationalist groups" certainly is undue. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

"Neo-confederate" is a subset of "white nationalist". For example, League of the South. Add in CoCC. Draw some Venn Diagrams. Big circle "white nationalist groups". Smaller circle within that bigger circle "neo-confederates". Then draw a circle called "groups which Moore has ties with" - this circle will then encompass both the proper subset and portions of the bigger circle.

In other words, the point makes no sense. If he has ties to neo-confederate groups, he has ties to white nationalist groups. If he has ties to non-neo-confederate-white-nationalist groups, he STILL has ties to white nationalist groups. One fact does not negate the other. They *support* each other. Volunteer Marek  23:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell

Whether or not Roy Moore wants to oust Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader is definitely a notable political position. One that has been reported by numerous national news outlets. The article should note that he once repeatedly favored ousting McConnell but now refuses to say if he would[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Trim the lede

Like with most articles, it's easy to trim text without losing crucial info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense in "Allegations"

This sentence is nonsensical:

"Three other women came forward to say Roy Moore, in his 30s, pursued relationships with them when they were teenagers, of which three of the women were of the legal age of consent at the time."

Three of three women? It appears an edit was not consistent. If three women are the total, and all three were of age, then it should say "...teenagers and above the age of consent." Siberian Husky (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Propose changing to "Three other women came forward to say Roy Moore, in his 30s, pursued relationships with them when they were 16-18, with the legal age of consent being 16." starship.paint ~ KO 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Anyway, the reference is broken. MelanieN could you help cite it to the Washington Post reference further up in the section? starship.paint ~ KO 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I believe in Alabama the marriage age was 14 at the time. So this was legal as long as none of these women was his full sister (half-sisters/step-sisters are ok). 104.183.232.251 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the broken reference and made a stab at fixing the ungrammatical sentence. The protection will expire soon and people can do normal editing again. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

its worth noting their stories are corroborated by friends they had told at the time and I think two of their mothers knew as well. One mother told Moore to stay away, that he was trying to "rob the cradle" Those are very important details. Also worth noting these women are not seeking money, nor do they know each other nor are they associated in any way. Please provide something other than "some women claimed that" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.99.3.159 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia censoring stuff?

Why can't anyone edit WP to cite reliable sources that Moore is accused of sex? I don't want to put it in but I want to read about it.

Sorry, no pun intended. Besides, I don't have one. AGrandeFan (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, anyone can edit WP. Not anyone can edit any article. This is one of them, since it's vandalized frequently by people who are damaging the integrity of the article. Also, no pun intended, that's what you're suggesting: he's not "accused of sex", whatever that means, and if you had inserted that we would have to take it out. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • BLP appears to be being heavily abused here. Artw (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Drmies and Neutrality: Can one of you please keep an eye on this talk page, and revdel or protect as necessary? I have to go out and there are BLP issues - people keep accusing him of a crime. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

International coverage

• http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/calls-for-republican-senate-nominee-in-alabama-to-quit-over-sexual-misconduct-accusations/story-bJTCuuZIUetdzJTnUHVTON.html Calls for Republican senate nominee in Alabama to quit over sexual misconduct accusations
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/09/republican-panic-builds-as-roy-moore-defiant-over-sexual-abuse-allegations Republican panic builds as Roy Moore defiant over sexual abuse allegations
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/senate-roy-moore-sex-accusations-1.4395471 Roy Moore, controversial Senate candidate, accused of sexual contact with teen
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/roy-moore-latest-child-sex-abuse-gay-homosexuality-comparison-a8048831.html Roy Moore: Republican candidate once claimed homosexuality was more damaging than child abuse
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41945199 Roy Moore: Conservatives back firebrand after abuse report

Artw (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusations

Shouldn't the accusations be moved to an independent "heading 1" section? It makes more sense then it being in the current spot... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DakotaSurf (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

They just went multi-paragraph, so it would make sense. Artw (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That would blatantly violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP because these accusations were just reported on yesterday, and they are still *accusations*. Claims like these are extremely damaging for anybody even if they are shown to be false. If this is anything similar to the Access Hollywood recordings with Trump last year, this incident will only merit an extremely insignificant location/byte size in this article -- though, of course, this could go either direction at this point. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not how either of those policies work. Artw (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong on that -- I did just think of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS in addition (for the latter, I refer specifically to the line "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information," and using a level 2 header would be unduly emphasizing the info). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

We're in day two of global coverage right now. Artw (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is still current information (aka breaking news). See the tag at the top of the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And WP:RECENT applies regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a statement on the matter form the Whitehouse.[5] all those policies would be cause to excercise caution but do not outweight the weight given to this by coverage, which swamps anything else about Moore.

Own section or not, the current placement is problematic as it suggests it is something to do with the election. Other than the accusations coming out now it's not, and we may be misleading readers by associating the two. Artw (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

comment

I was sked on my talk p. to make a general comment in addition to the specific discussed above. section 8.9 and 8.12 add unnecessary editorialized debunking his views. Section 3.6 on his removal is in greatly excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard not to see the additional text in 8.9 as needed context - not everyone is going to be familair with why such a view would be controversial. Artw (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Similarly not seeing a lot of fat to cut in 8.12. Artw (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Also I'd say that the idea that the notion that material regarding a politicians views and political actions would be inappropriate and too WP:COATRACKy for an article, as posited by User:Ad_Orientem is vaguely ridiculous. He's running for senate, for gods sake, we're going to want to know if he wants to repeal the 1st amendment etc. Artw (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with presenting his views, some of which are absolutely controversial (arguably fringe). But we need to be mindful of DUE and NPOV. Are there no issues or positions he has taken that are not completely loopy? If so, one would not know that from reading this article. And lastly we are not here to make the world a better place or to alert people that Roy Moore is a political wingnut. See WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly from a a review of sources I suspect the unfortunately truth is he really is that cartoonishly evil. Adjusting the article to make it less "excessive" would just result in making it counterfactual. Artw (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your above comment is frankly disturbing. We do not construct articles by selectively only including controversial material. The more I look at this, and the more I read this discussion, the more convinced I am becoming that this article is seriously unbalanced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked if the artcile could be tilted to portraying him a bad light. My response would be that he is portrayed as the sources portray him, which is per Wikipedia policy. And I would mit that it has a cartoonish quality and it is largely from my POV bad, though I'm sure if you shared similar views to him he'd actually be "cartoonishly great". Artw (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW if this constitutes the entirety of your justification for adding the undue template i will be removing it shortly. Artw (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ummm... removing a maintenance tag w/o consensus that the issues raised have been addressed is a no no. As for my personal opinion on Moore, I could not write it w/o violating BLP (and using language I picked up in the Navy). But my private opinion of him is neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I've posted a request for some other opinions over at WT:POLITICS. If I'm off base here I'm sure I will be told as much shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:UNDUE tag, at least for now. The concern about section 3.6 "2016 charges in Alabama Court of the Judiciary" being too long can probably be addressed with a spinout article. I don't see why the paragraph on "Foundation for Moral Law" should be in the lede. And the "Political positions" should at least contain some positions that he's proud of and are somewhat mainstream, assuming there are any (gun control? abortion?); the tendency of editors to add every negative news story has overwhelmed that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We cannot assume any policies from him that lack sourcing. Given that i can't see the tag as legitimate, it;s just an expredsion of displeasure with the article. Artw (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs UNDUE and NPOV improvements, as well as Power~enwiki's assessment of the article and potential improvements. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I created Roy Moore's tenure on the Alabama Supreme Court. And I'm almost certain such sources exist; we certainly can assume those policies exist for an hour while we discuss this and I try to find them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see some evidence that this article contains any distortions, deliberate omission of relevant information or deviation from sources in its depiction of Moore. Preferably with some sources and actionable suggestions for edits attached. Artw (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

...or you could just vandalize it. That's great. Artw (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing is not vandalism. The entirety of the content is preserved on a sub-page. I'm tempted to revert you, but as the article is under 1RR I'll let somebody else do it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would not qualify arbitrary large scale deletion as "editing". Artw (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Artw, what are you doing? There are four highly experienced editors who have expressed NPOV and DUE concerns about this article. Please show some respect for WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have to agree with it, but you must respect it. I strongly favor reverting your restoration of material that looks grossly UNDUE and would ask that you do so yourself. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would ask what four experienced editors are doing gutting an article and refusing to justify their actions except in the most abstract of terms. Artw (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I am moving excessive details (not every news story on his 2016 removal needs to be in this article) to a sub-page. I find Artw to annoy me in an irrational way such that I plan to refrain from any further edits or talk-page comments on this topic for the next 12 hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are correcting serious NPOV and DUE issues. If you don't want to help, fine but please don't be obstructionist. Again, please see WP:CONSENSUS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki Please don't withdraw. Artw seems to be suffering from a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and it is getting tiresome. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What he said. But, you might consider deleting text in smaller pieces. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Objecting to bulk deletion of sourced content on spurious grounds of "balance" and without any attempt at engagement is hardly "obstructionist". Artw (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Artw when four (maybe five) editors are all saying that there are NPOV and DUE issues, and you are alone in your disagreement, then yes your recent editing is obstructionist, bordering on tendentious. Please stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've that your deletions of sourced content be justified and that you identify any alleged problems with the article properly and in detail, which you have failed to do. I've also made one revert of a mass deletion that I think can quite reasonably be held to be excessive. Artw (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Still unclear on what exactly is "UNDUE". Yes, there might be some parts which need trimming, but "needs trimming" is NOT the same thing as "UNDUE". Volunteer Marek  01:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been replaced. Still no explanation of DUE issues except the insistence there are some, except maybe Power~enwiki suggesting we add some nice articles about Moore and then failing to provide any. Artw (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(I can't let this falsehood go un-challenged, despite my best intentions) I did add a section with a reference that he was pro-life, but you reverted it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, must have missed that in the bulk edit. Feel free to restore if you think it is relevant. Artw (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(Also I am very much unsure why Moore being pro-life would be new to the article or affect WP:DUE one way or another). Artw (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is pro-life. If the term is used to mean anti-abortion, scare quotes would seem in order. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored that section, though possibly it is already covered by the section "Attributing disasters to homosexuality, abortion and declining religiosity" or the two should be merged? And yes, again we are straying into the outlandish and weird, but sadly that is the nature of the subject. Artw (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(one more reply, against my best judgment) While 50-75% of Roy Moore's positions are outside the mainstream of the Republican party, probably 95% of those in the article are outside the mainstream of the Republican party. Not including any of the positions that the Republican party as a whole supports is misleading. Apart from the excessive volume of some of the judge-ship section (and Marek makes a valid point regarding WP:UNDUE there, which I'm not going to comment on), the fact that none of his "mainstream Republican" positions are mentioned while all of his weirdo positions are is a perfect example of WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be asking us to give WP:UNDUE weight to a position that he is "mainstream" without backing it up with sources? And arguing that we should delete material contrary to that if sources claiming he is mainstream cannot be found? Possibly we should RFC this but I do not see this as a tenable position. Artw (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• In the interest of keeping the temperature here to a manageable level I am going to take a note from Power~enwiki and step away for the night. I will come back tomorrow morning and see where we are. Perhaps more editors will join the discussion. In the meantime I wish to make it clear that I strongly object to removing the UNDUE tag until we have a consensus that the issues raised have either been remedied or don't rise to the level justifying the tag. Good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The issues cannot be resolved as, outside of a suggestion we censor sourced content to make Moore look more normal no issue was defined. And that suggestion is blatantly outside of common sense and Wikipedia WEIGHT policies. I suggest the template be removed as cruft. Artw (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that the article has an overall WP:DUEWEIGHT problem. There may be an opportunity to condense some material, but for the most part it seems to reflect coverage in reliable sources. I'm opposed to removing large amounts of material without first discussing it here and getting consensus. I do agree with DGG that section 3.6 (now 3.5) is excessively detailed. I do not agree that section 8.12 (now 8.13) contains editorializing or debunking. It's mostly facts and Moore's own words.- MrX 02:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your overall assessment, but I think your comment is fair and not unreasonable. We can continue this discussion in the morning. I am using tooth picks to keep my eyes open right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add Template:Undue weight section to the "Chief Justice, Alabama Supreme Court" section (or possibly just "2016 charges in Alabama Court of the Judiciary"), but don't see a good reason to keep a top-level UNUDE tag at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Funding claims

Throughout the article there are some various claims as to how well Moore was funded in a campaign versus how well his opponent was funded. All of these are oddly specific, ie " Judge Moore won his election to Chief Justice with just over $200,000, compared to the over $2 million spent by his opponents" and "Moore unexpectedly defeated both without a runoff (as he had done in 2000) despite being heavily outspent ($225,000 to $1.5 million)" but come without citation. Do we really need these? i am thinking of deleting them all. Artw (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If there are no citations, then do a quick search to see if there are RS out there, and if not, yeah, delete them. Volunteer Marek  18:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources (campaign finance reports) almost certainly exist, but I don't see any reason to include this. The sourced quote about him having "absolutely no funds" is more than enough for that section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Montgomery Advertiser print edition

I've removed the following...

In January 2012, the Montgomery Advertiser reported that the single-biggest donor to his campaign (having contributed $50,000 of the total $78,000 received by Moore until December 31, 2011) is Michael Peroutka, a longtime acquaintance of Moore's who is associated with organizations such as the Constitution Party and white supremacist group League of the South and is a frequent guest on The Political Cesspool. In response, Moore said he did not share the ideas of those organizations.

...as the Wayback Link deadends on a page saying the article is available in the print edition. If anyone can confirm the cited material in the printed edition we can restore the content. Artw (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Artw: I was able to find this: https://web.archive.org/web/20141018163412/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20120109/NEWS02/201090304/Donor-tied-extremists-Out-state-lawyer-major-contributor-Roy-Moore. This gives the first few paragraphs. If we want the rest we'll need to go to Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. Neutrality^talk 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right infobox

Why has the Alt-Right infobox been removed? Artw (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Because of everything in the "Insertion of "far-right" and "alt-right" links in lede" section above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to the lead sentence of the "Political positions" section. Artw (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Approximately none of the many links you had in "Further coverage" refer to him as alt-right. Just because one article in the Jerusalem Post called him alt-right doesn't justify an infobox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... [6] Artw (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh ... supporters of the Christian fundamentalist candidate, along with the most prominent platforms of the so-called alt-right suggests that he's a "Christian fundamentalist" and that the alt-right is something different. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Relationships with teenage girls

The following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Moore&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=809535833&oldid=809535699

removed the following text

The woman, as described in the article, claimed there were two encounters at Moore's house, the first of which being a date where he "told her how pretty she was and kissed her." On a second date, Moore "took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes...touched her over her bra and underpants...and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear."

with the reason in the Edit summary

"removed non-encyclopedic details about the alleged encounter"

I think this edit removes significant content which belongs in the entry. Describing it as a "sexual encounter" is too vague to let the reader understand the facts. A sexual encounter can be anything from unwanted touching of her arm or waist to forcible rape. The reader needs enough detail to understand the incident. Wikipedia entries should not be written in a way that readers are required to follow links to the original in order to get essential information.

Under the policy WP:NOT WP:NOTCENSORED:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia....

Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.

I would like to restore this text.

If you believe it is "non-encyclopedic", please explain, citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, why it is non-encyclopedic. As noted above, your personal feelings, or being "objectionable" or "offensive," is not a valid reason. --Nbauman (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The article currently has the text "These three women said that Moore did not force them into having a relationship or non-consensual sexual contact." - this seems to be a misrepresentation of the sources unless they gave consent for the bra and underwear touching? Artw (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WaPo: “None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That is correct, but by our earlier omission we have now given the false impression that no action without consent was alleged. Artw (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What omission? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The briefly deleted section immediately before that sentence. I see no problem now it is restored. Artw (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the content. Artw (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added "allegedly" to the aforementioned paragraph given that Moore has issued a blanket denial and per WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." ^Falling_Gravity 18:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW Moore appears to confirm at least some of the claims whilst defending himself in this interview [7]. I beleive at some point we may be able to remove at least some of the "allegedly"s - in particular I;m not sure the one in the heading belongs. Artw (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

At this point; interpreting that interview as a confession is unwarranted. In maters like this, a LP gets the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

More on the interview: Moore Responds to Sexual-Misconduct Allegations With Evasive Maneuvers - again aside from the denial of the sexual assault on the 14 year old he essentially confirms large swathes of the surrounding story. Artw (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

https://thinkprogress.org/former-prosecutor-says-it-was-common-knowledge-that-roy-moore-dated-high-school-girls-b73e489bea05/ Former prosecutor says it was ‘common knowledge’ that Roy Moore ‘dated high school girls’ Artw (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) I changed the title of this section to be the same as the title of the corresponding section in the main article. (2) The following poorly formed sentence, "If true, the allegation of sexual contact between Moore and the 14 year old would be a felony under Alabama law." makes no sense; obviously an "allegation of sexual contact" cannot be a "felony", because it is an allegation, not a crime. Instead the sentence should say simply, "Sexual contact between Moore and the 14 year old would be a felony under Alabama law.".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.169.166.78 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Further coverage

• https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/11/11/in-call-with-us-lawmaker-roy-moore-doesnt-deny-kissing-teenagers-as-30-year-old/ Roy Moore Didn’t Deny Kissing Teenagers as 30-Year-Old in Call With Lawmaker
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/roy-moores-refusal-to-exit-alabama-senate-race-reflects-diminished-power-of-washington/2017/11/11/07251708-c65f-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?utm_term=.44bb1ef9a5dd Roy Moore’s refusal to exit Alabama Senate race reflects diminished power of Washington
• http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moore_denies_sexual_miscon.html Roy Moore denies sexual encounter with teen, accuser hits back: What we know today
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/11/trump-has-no-comment-on-roy-moore-because-he-doesnt-watch-much-tv Trump has no comment on Roy Moore because he doesn't 'watch much TV'
• http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2017/11/post_120.html Are evangelical voters giving a 'blank check' to Roy Moore?
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-dont-republicans-dump-roy-moore/ Commentary: Why don't Republicans dump Roy Moore?
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/alabama-republican-voters-stand-roy-moore-n819906 In Alabama, Republican Voters Stand by Roy Moore
• http://www.macon.com/news/nation-world/article184079411.html Some GOP political operatives fear Roy Moore could lose race
• http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/the_unbuckling_of_the_bible_be.html Roy Moore defense: Unbuckling the Bible Belt
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-donald-trump-taught-conservatives-to-defend-roy-moore How Donald Trump Taught Conservatives to Defend Roy Moore
• http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/comparison-of-roy-moore-controversy-to-bible-s-mary-and-joseph-draws-ire/story-wnuJYikQ7ZvRTqnmTqva3O.html Comparison of Roy Moore controversy to Bible’s Mary and Joseph draws ire
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-roy-moore-evangelical_us_5a06a546e4b0e37d2f379665 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-roy-moore-evangelical_us_5a06a546e4b0e37d2f379665
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/us/politics/roy-moore-alabama-republicans.html Alabama Republicans Defend Roy Moore: ‘It Was 40 Years Ago’
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5072193/Local-Republicans-embattled-candidate-Roy-Moore.html 'I think the turnout is going to be larger FOR Roy Moore': Local Republicans BACK embattled Senate candidate accused of preying on teen girls - as supporters share photo of his accuser working as an interpreter for Hillary Clinton
• http://whnt.com/2017/11/10/what-could-the-allegations-against-roy-moore-mean-to-the-alabama-gop-and-voters/ What could the allegations against Roy Moore mean to the Alabama GOP and voters?
• https://www.mediaite.com/tv/attorney-for-roy-moores-foundation-calls-don-lemon-lemon-squeezy-twice-in-strange-interview/ Attorney for Roy Moore’s Foundation Calls Don Lemon ‘Lemon Squeezy’ Twice in Strange Interview
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-schmidt-roy-moore-gop-defense_us_5a066d78e4b05673aa595e25 GOP Strategist Says Lincoln Is Rolling In His Grave Over Roy Moore’s Defenders
• http://www.kitv.com/story/36818728/the-unholy-excuses-of-roy-moores-allies The unholy excuses of Roy Moore's allies

Artw (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And it's easy to keep going with the sources. The fact that this is being kept out of the lede is just testament to how easily Wikipedia can be gamed. Volunteer Marek  15:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be a seperate section and in the lead. Currently it is hidden behind a wall of text that will likely be missed. It needs to be moved. OhOhCanada (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Censorship

Why are the sexual assault accusations not in a seperate section? It is in the campaign section, which makes the accusations appear partisan. OhOhCanada (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoa there OhOhCanada—that's not censorship. Where do you think the section should be placed, and why?- MrX 21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's my fault for not reading down in the thread and seeing why it was delayed. It's changed to my request anyway by another user. OhOhCanada (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Beliefs other than political ones

Surely these are pretty clearly political beliefs? Artw (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ad Orientem that they’re more like social beliefs, religious beliefs, or personal beliefs. If he proposes or opposes government action, then it’s a political belief. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

His attacks on the LGBT community are political in nature as they provide a justification for persecution. Likewise his anti-science beliefs clearly have political ramifications. Artw (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless that's expressly stated in RS sources that's SYNTH. I don't actually disagree with your analysis. It's just that this has to be expressly stated somewhere we can cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps simply have a section called "beliefs"? Or "Views"? not worth fighting about it, surely... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a possibility but given he is largely known as a political figure, I tend to think that there should be a section that focuses on that aspect. I don't see an issue with separating some of his non-political views. Putting them in a section by themselves can actually lend more attention to them. Normally that would be a DUE issue in itself, but given how prominently he has made these fringe beliefs on his own, I think putting them in their own special section is perfectly legitimate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If they were about water polo or the correct way to make tea of something, perhaps. Describing these as political is a dodge and an insult to those affected. Artw (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If they’re included under political beliefs, then we ought to say whether he’s proposed to put those beliefs into law, or is happy to live and let live. If it’s unknown, then we need to convey that too, so readers won’t assume he wants to put it into law. He may well be the kind of person who wants to run every detail of everyone else’s life. If so, let’s find sources that prove it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

These are, in my view, political beliefs (views on evolution are part of "culture wars" and impact policy), and Moore expressed them in interviews and statements made as a political candidate. I can't see a sensible reason to atomize content. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

An argument can made to that effect (provided there is some RS source that connects the dots) with respect to his bizarre views on homosexuality. But rejecting evolution is not inherently political. In fact it is a pretty mainstream religious belief in many parts of the US. We would need a really solid RS source labeling his beliefs on that as political before we could put it back there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is a university press-published book stating that in 2010, Moore ran attack ads against a primary opponent focusing on the opponent's acceptance of evolution. Neutrality^talk 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a valid source establishing it’s a political belief. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That rings the political issue bell. I'd probably add that to the section with the cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientum, you appear to be removing content relating to Moore's anti-LGBT views, in particular regarding the death penalty for homosexuality[8], something that makes the views expressed here extremely politically relevant. Artw (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was asked a question that he declined to answer. There is nothing there. We don't put material in that clearly is intended to imply something that he did not say. Sorry that sentence was a massive UNDUE and POV fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Artw I see you have ignored my objection and reinserted the POV/UNDUE sentence. I also believe you may have breached 1RR in doing so. I would encourage you to self revert. If you think that belongs in here we can open it up for discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

My experience on this and a million other politician pages is that we include "non-committal" stances when RS deem those non-commitments notable. I don't remember this content exactly but wasn't it notable enough to be a headline for the RS that covered it? (I added it originally) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that practice. On those occasions when I have run into it, I have almost always opposed it. We have our own standards that are not always the same as those in the press. Just because somehting gets press/media coverage doesn't mean it gets in here. He didn't answer a question. That's it. Putting that in here is clearly POV and UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's extremely common that we say that a politician has not taken a position on issue X or declined to take a position. For a recent example, see the Ralph Northam page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Have undone my edit restoring that content. In my opinion that edit is extremely poor and the content should be restored at the soonest possible convenience. Artw (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Obviously we disagree on whether this belongs, but I appreciate your self reverting until we get a consensus here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the evolution stuff back up, with the additional material and cites. As for the rest: Commenting on the causes of 9/11, Sandy Hook, and opining on abortion and same-sex marriage is clearly political. The citations come from Politico (which is a politics publication) and the Washington Post POLITICS section. It's plain weird to argue that these are not "political" views. Call it "political and religious views" if you like, but it's certainly political, and that's how the reliable sources characterize it. Neutrality^talk 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've likewise mored the LGBT stuff up. You can't call trying to hang Sandy Hook on gay people apolitical. Artw (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The beliefs under dispute here are obviously political. I added the content originally. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)