Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Moore's defence of Eric Lemont Higdon

Bit surprised that the article does not see to mention this:

In 2015, while Moore was serving on the Alabama Supreme Court, he considered the case of Eric Lemont Higdon, a 17-year-old, who was convicted of raping a 12-year-old at a daycare center. Higdon was found guilty under a sodomy statute that applied specifically to minors, as well another statute prohibiting rape. The second conviction was overturned by an appeals court and sent to the state supreme court for review.

Eight justices found that the 12-year-old’s fear of harm from a much older and larger individual was enough to establish “implied threat of serious physical injury” and reinstated Higdon’s conviction. Moore was the only dissent, saying that there was “no evidence in this case of an implied threat of serious physical injury.” Moore oddly argued that the court’s interpretation opened the door to a 10-year-old being found guilty of raping an 8-year-old. [1]

In light of recent accusations it seems worthwhile of mention. More sources here: [2] [3] [4] Artw (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, two of those sources are unacceptable to use: Think Progress is a liberal advocacy source, and the Washington Examiner article is a conservative op-ed. Mediaite also seems questionable. This leaves the al.com source, which is good, but adding this story simply because it seems relevant today when it did not receive much coverage back then and not any more right now does not justify actually including it. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
In light of Moore running for Senate, this is a perfectly acceptable edit. If its references you desire, Find Law is a fine. [5]As is Justia, which provides the actual ruling and Moore’s descent. [6]--Lakota1981 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of court record, so sourcing is not a problem, though arguably WP:SYNTH and weight would be if no sources went further into it.
Couple more sources:
Another one: https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/roy-moore-cast-the-sole-vote-in-favor-of-a-man-who-raped-a-four-year-old/ Roy Moore Cast The Sole Vote In Favor Of A Man Who Raped A Four-Year-Old Artw (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not an isolated incident: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/14/roy-moore-alabama-law-rape-victims-judge Roy Moore challenged Alabama law that protects rape victims, documents reveal Artw (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

New Yorker article that is needed to be added

"Sexual Advances" should not be used for asking for a date BLP

"Sexual advances" sounds pejorative as used for asking a girl for a date. I changed it to the actual fact of trying to date or dating. "Sexual assault" commonly refers to rape, so it is better to use more specific language, namely touching panties. BLP (PeacePeace (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC))

It is entirely possible to be sexually assaulted without being raped. But if you want to be more specific, then we can be more specific... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
And if you are worried about being "pejorative" in this context, then you might have the wrong worry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That is how it was worded in sources. "Advances" have been replaced by a stronger wording, "assault". I am not sure if that would be appropriate. 15:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"Sexual assault" is the descriptor used in the latest story: New Roy Moore accuser to come forward in Monday press conference Artw (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This one goes with "sexual contact", but I can't say I care for that construction: McConnell: Roy Moore should step aside Artw (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What a nonsense definition of "sexual assault", that it means "rape". "Sexual advances" is a really unacceptable way of describing what he is being accused of. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I don’t think much of the BLP subject, but just because you think a definition is nonsense does not make it so:

  • “While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." ‪Paludi, Michele. Campus Action Against Sexual Assault, p. 56 (‬ABC-CLIO‪, 2016).
  • ‬”sexual assault. 1. Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent. 2. Offensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.)

If we use the term “sexual assault” then we need to give some clue about what kind of sexual assault, or else we are unnecessarily suggesting rape. This is a WP:BLP issue, and you dismissing it as nonsense is, uh, nonsense. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    • Seriously--you're giving definitions that prove my point. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If anything those prove that sexual assault doesn't inherently mean rape. This is hair-splitting now. --RevivesDarks (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It is “usually seen” as rape, and the primary legal definition is intercourse without consent (I.e. rape). But states may define it differently, (hence the secondary definition). Would it kill us to say which way we’re using the term? Or is our goal to suggest rape when the sources clearly say something other than rape? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Trying to force someone's mouth over your genitals against their will is most definitely attempted rape.- MrX 00:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Duh. Of course it is. Are all the five women alleging that? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This is rapidly approaching the point of utter ridiculousness. Artw (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@User:Anythingyouwant: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. No one is claiming that he tried to rape all five girls. The article text seems perfectly clear to me. - MrX 03:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This article previously said "In November 2017, allegations arose that Moore made sexual advances on four teenagers when he was in his thirties." I would oppose changing "sexual advances" to "sexual assault" in this sentence without specifying the type of sexual assault, because otherwise we'd be suggesting that Moore is accused of attempting to rape four teenagers, which is false AFAIK. I hope that clarifies my view on the matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Your view is clear enough -- but it's also wrong. Sexual assault comes in several varieties; if you think that someone who hasn't been raped hasn't been sexually assaulted no matter what else has happened to them, then you're simply mistaken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have repeatedly agreed above that sexual assault comes in several varieties, and that someone who hasn't been raped may still have been sexually assaulted. I will keep on saying this over and over if you want me to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
OK Anythingyouwant, if I understand correctly, you would oppose "...allegations arose that Moore sexually assaulted four teenagers when he was in his thirties." I agree, because three of the four teenagers were pursued, not sexually assaulted, according the sources. - MrX 12:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Putin reference taken out of context

Moore has strongly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating that he is maybe "more akin to me than I know [myself]." This is isn't what the Guardian article said. It Putin's position on gay marriage suggested to Moore that they might have more in common than he was aware of. Please correct this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.161.249 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

While the sources do mention gay marriage, they are also talking about wider context:
"When The Guardian's Paul Lewis, who was probing the rising popularity of Russian President Vladimir Putin among U.S. conservatives, told Moore that former President Reagan called Russia "the focus of evil in the modern world," Moore said it wasn't the only one. "You could say that very well about America, couldn't you?" Moore responded in the interview published Wednesday. [7]
That could be added I think. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede too lengthy, detailed

The lede is massive (dare I say ridiculously so) with far too many details that should be left to the various individual sections. 69.34.50.65 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Until a write-in GOP candidacy is official (and my WP:CRYSTAL prediction is that will be Wednesday or Thursday), I don't know how to re-write the lead. My half-done effort is at my sandbox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, a common problem with freaking news. Likely to continue as we will probably see new revelations. We’ll need to continue moving stuff down the page. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
While it will be difficult reducing the intro, it probably is a good idea. It is uncomfortably long in its present form. My recommendation is to make the intro be a lot more general in its description and leave the detail in the article body. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I pruned it a little bit. As far as I'm concerned the sexual allegations should be cut entirely, or cut down to one sentence at the most. It's all still very much in flex (with new allegations out today, allegations that as far as I know were deemed to be very credible), and we are way too close to the news cycle. Ha, tell you what, I'll give it a go, and if one of you here reverts, that's fine--if it's someone who hasn't been weighing in here on the talk page, it would be nice if they commented before reverting. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, just saw this. You were reverted and I re-reverted. Meant to include a request to come to Talk. But, hit the wrong button. One too many glasses of Chard with my salmon. O3000 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, it's Salmonday. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Trying to recover from my masochistic tendencies. Wrong place again. O3000 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed245, this is where you can discuss these matters. I see you've got a few hundred edits and maybe you aren't aware of all the ways and means of collaborative editing--we are not at a stage in this article where every single edit has to have consensus on the talk page before it is made; we are in a stage where we are discussing things. There is consensus that...well I don't have to repeat my edit summary. O3000, thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware. I just think your edits were bad.
A consensus in favor of generally trimming the lead - if it even exists - is meaningless. We need to know what's actually being removed. That's especially true here, where you cut the lead in a very substantial, very questionable way, and it doesn't look like you've actually justified your particular edits on here any more than I did. One example: you included the sexual assault allegation of one woman, while mysteriously excluding the other, similar allegation (arguably more serious). Another: you removed a Vox statement that added broad context to just how extreme Moore's views are. If he's running for the Senate, then it's useful to know how his views stack up to the rest of the Senate. Another: now that we've removed what actually happened in the primary, where Moore beat Strange, the paragraph looks disjointed and incomplete. Another: you excluded the fact that the women's accounts were confirmed by multiple independent witnesses, which we need in order to convey the seriousness of what's being alleged. Point me to where there's consensus for any of this, and I agree that your edits should stand, pending further discussion. Otherwise, I think you should start taking your own advice on collaboration. Fixed245 (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If you think that the prediction in an editorial about the political position of a candidate in an election is in any way leadworthy, you aren't really aware of what an encyclopedia is. And "mysteriously"--nothing was done mysteriously. If you want to know what's "actually being removed", click here. Strange and all that have their place--further down in the article. Really, see WP:LEAD. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Read the Vox article again - that's not a prediction, it's a description. As for the rest, just repeating what you did isn't that convincing. You actually have to provide reasons to back it up. I'm still waiting. Fixed245 (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I generally support Drmies lead trim, but I'm having trouble with this sentence:
"However, in November 2017, five women alleged that Moore had dated or attempted to date them when they were still in high school, and one of the women stated that when she was 14, a 32-year old Moore initiated a sexual encounter."
We are describing dating, molestation of a child, and attempted rape as "dated or attempted to date". It should be something more like:
"However, in November 2017, three women alleged that Moore dated or attempted to date them when they were still in high school; one women stated that when she was 14, a 32-year old Moore initiated a sexual encounter; and another woman said that Moore attempted to sexually assault her when she was 16."
Thoughts?- MrX 03:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
MrX, I'm fine with any kind of change in the wording you want to make there: I merely made an opening move, and I think I kept as much of the original in there. But for stronger wording you may find resistance, though of course some sources will put it that strongly. I'm not wedded to what I left there and I am happy to withdraw, but I will jump back in for BLP matters, as I think you'd expect from me. Good luck and happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I support mentioning that the age of consent is 16. Highly relevant. The three women in high school whom he tried to date were of the age of consent, right? Moore’s alleged behavior is plenty bad enough even when we provide all the most pertinent facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you can have that the sexual abuse is "alleged", and that he denies it, but all of the rest of the hair splitting and arguing the toss probably belongs down in the main body. Artw (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The age of consent is mentioned in the body of the article. We should not include it in the lead, since there is no mention of statutory rape and it doesn't apply to dating anyway.- MrX 12:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That lead seems to have miraculously grown again. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Drmies it has expanded a bit. I suggest the following trims:
Moore denied allegations of sexual assault, calling them fake news and a smear campaign, but did not deny consensual relationships with teenagers.
Also, why do we repeat in the lead that Moore is a candidate in the special election for Senate and that he won the primary against Luther Strange? Isn't once enough?- MrX 21:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that we can do without the fake news bit. I would also ditch the second sentence 'Moore is the Republican nominee...' if we have to ditch anything. --RevivesDarks (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Consensual relationships with teenagers is too vague. A consensual relationship with a 14-year-old could be statutory rape, whereas a consensual relationship with a 16-year-old could not. I don’t see why there is a desperate insistence at this BLP to not say that these particular females were above the age of consent at the same time we say there were consensual relationships.. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we could use wording like "...but did not deny consensual relationships with teenagers over the age of 16." Or at least something else that clarifies this while still being brief in the intro. Moore has strongly denied any relationship under the age of 16, but he appears to have been open to admitting relationships that were legal (assuming they were consensual). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
We can't say that he "has strongly denied any relationship under the age of 16" unless he has done exactly that (which I don't believe he has). We don't need to insult our reader's intelligence by discussing the age of consent when we have not discussed sex occurring between 30+ year old Moore and the 16 year old teens.- MrX 23:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: "has strongly denied any relationship under the age of 16" was not my proposal. Notice that I did not put any quote marks around that sentence -- that sentence was my thoughts, not a proposal to add. My proposal was something along the lines of "...but did not deny consensual relationships with teenagers over the age of 16", as I said above. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
OK 1990'sguy, I stand corrected. I would support that as an improvement of the existing text. (adding "...over the age of 16." to the lead.)- MrX 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I added it. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If you don’t want to imply sex between them, you could replace “consensual relationships with teenagers” to “consensual platonic relationships with teenagers” or “consensual friendships”, but “consensual relationships” strongly implies sex. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Am strongly in favour of dropping all the prevaricating bullshit that has been lobbied for. Artw (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The content needs to paraphrase this from the source:

"Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.
— The Washington Post

We can't introduce original research.- MrX 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I made this change before reading this, but I agree with what has been said here: that "consensual relationship" has strong sexual connotations and that we are wrong to imply that he "did not deny" such relationships. We are talking about what he has "not denied" doing, or even agreed that he did. I have changed "consensual relations" to "did not deny approaching and dating". --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

More teens

Locals Were Troubled by Roy Moore’s Interactions with Teen Girls at the Gadsden Mall Artw (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows, but Jesus. Not this.
Sources tell me Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls. If Moore keeps lying, that story will soon come out in a big way too.
Artw (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
These are only rumors from unnamed sources. Can't be taken seriously and certainly not included on the page. 69.34.50.65 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ha, but when reported in reliable sources, that's a different kettle of fish. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia demands reliable sources, not written affidavits. The New Yorker is a reliable source. From the article it becomes clear that the journalist was not relying on rumors written on the bathroom wall, but that she spoke with the witnesses himself. ---- 79.223.8.242 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The NY Times says: By Monday night, an article in The New Yorker asserted that Mr. Moore had been barred from the mall in his hometown, Gadsden, for bothering young women, a memory that many in the town said they shared, though no one has found direct evidence. [8] Can't find any reference in WaPo. There hasn't been any verification by mall management. Still appears to be in the rumor category. O3000 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The banning was confirmed by one of the security guards who worked there: "Legat said () J. D. told me, ‘If you see Roy, let me know. He’s banned from the mall.’" Volunteer Marek  22:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Roy Moore, Long Divisive in His Hometown, and Even More So Now Artw (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Read it. Sad. But, what's your point? O3000 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Two new accusers

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/new_roy_moore_accuser_he_didnt.html New Roy Moore accuser: 'He didn't pinch it; he grabbed it'

One more sexual assault, 28 at the time, one more attempted "dating", 17 at the time. Artw (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This'll probably prompt someone to pile in even more diminishing and confusing language into the article, but I should probably point out that the latest sexual assault in the "Alleged sexual encounters with teenagers" section is not actually with a teenager. 23:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be split into another article.
Two more?
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/two-more-women-describe-unwanted-overtures-by-roy-moore-at-alabama-mall/2017/11/15/2a1da432-ca24-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d0331eeb9ee7 s

Two more women describe unwanted overtures by Roy Moore at Alabama mall] Artw (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Article split

With the number of accusations, should we create a seperate page?OhOhCanada (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly not, though some of the more-political details may belong at United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting you would see them as primarily related to the election. Artw (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
At this point, I'd say no. But that could change if any of the allegations are proven. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it's fine for now. --RevivesDarks (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The parts about possible write-in candidates are certainly related to the election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That’s speculation that there will be write-in candidates, and then speculating on the effect of the speculation. Is that what an encyclopedia does? O3000 (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If it ends up having a broader social impact and we ed up having to spend a lot of time discussing people who are not him, then would be the time, I'd say. Probably would lean heavy on the social aspects that have led people to condone/support some of his behaviour, what that means for evangelicals/republicans etc.... Artw (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Also as the section expands it's going need some better structuring and subsections - possibly per account? It's very easy to lose track right now. Artw (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we now have Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal. I don’t think it’s really necessary yet, because this main BLP is not very long yet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like better structuring and it'll accomodate the inevitable expansion better. Artw (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: ??? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry.. missed this and a few drinks... but come one, you know this is big enough to be WP:N on its own.Casprings (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It's reasonable enough that I'm not going to ask you to revert it or anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, we'll soon know if the general feeling here is that it is notable enough for a split, because I have AfD'ed it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
A depressingly innevitable waste of time. Artw (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel pretty good it will pass AFD.Casprings (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request to add category

At the very bottom of the page can someone add Category:Roy Moore? 100.12.206.41 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:39, 18 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: [9][10][11]. 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)

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:

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)

(←) (some content has been removed by an anonymous editor which can be found in this archive's page history) --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)
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

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

User 59 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

thumb

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:21, 26 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Moore/Archive_5&oldid=1095451886"