Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Why no "Luther Strange" in the lead?

Moore defeated Luther Strange in the GOP primary for Strange's Senate seat, but Strange is not mentioned in the lead. That is strange. I suggest we insert Strange as follows: "During the Senate race, after Moore had defeated incumbent Luther Strange for the Republican nomination, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls.[3]" The cited source says, "Sen. Luther Strange, whom he defeated this fall in a runoff election.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Mike Lee (American politician) is the only current US Senator to have defeated an incumbent in a primary, and Bob Bennett is mentioned there. Sam Brownback's article doesn't mention Sheila Frahm in the lede. Considering the massive amount of other information to include, I don't think Strange needs to be mentioned. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
We absolutely should not connect the primary defeat of Luther Strange and the sexual assault claims against Moore. To do so would imply that the two are somehow connected events. Mentioning Strange in the lead would be trivial and, well... strange. But if it is included, it needs to be separate from the sexual assault allegations.- MrX 00:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
He's mentioned in Roy Moore#2017 Senate special election in Alabama, which is the appropriate place. Txantimedia (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether the edit I suggested is implemented or not, it obviously would not be SYNTH because the cited source about the allegations makes very clear that the allegations followed the defeat of Strange. As I already pointed out, the cited source says "Sen. Luther Strange, whom he defeated this fall in a runoff election.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the source says:
"According to campaign reports, none of the women has donated to or worked for Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, or his rivals in the Republican primary, including Sen. Luther Strange, whom he defeated this fall in a runoff election."[1]
The source actually distances the women who made the accusations and Luther Strange, which is the opposite of what your wording does.- MrX 02:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I’ll point out that the word “misrepresentation” in your edit summary is a synonym of “lying”. Secondly, I am not lying about the source, and the edit I suggested does not tie the accusations to Luther Strange but rather says they were not part of Moore’s contest with Strange whatsoever. Maybe your accusation of dishonesty is a bit of projection, User:MrX? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I wrote "let's (let us) not misrepresent the source". I never said that you intentionally misrepresented the source. The construct "...after Moore had defeated incumbent Luther Strange" is trivial information, especially in the context of discussing something as serious as sexual assault. Putting those two things together elevates the importance of the Luther Strange defeat, suggesting to readers that it is causal, or somehow related to the sexual assault allegations, which is not what the source is saying. - MrX 02:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Per dictionary.com, “Misrepresent usually involves a deliberate intention to deceive, either for profit or advantage....” So intentionally is kind of built into it. Anyway, I am not going to argue further that we include “Luther Strange” in the lead, which seems about as futile as trying to include “age of consent” in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Jake Byrd at Roy Moore Rally in Alabama

!!!64.175.41.111 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Time in Australia

The Guardian has an excellent article about Moore's time in Queensland in the early '80s, currently a lacuna between paragraphs in the article. We now can and should fill it in.

I don't see any of it as being too controversial, so I'm going to go ahead and do it myself. Just giving everyone a heads-up. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Uh... maybe a sentence or so, but a whole paragraph? That's WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek  05:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes I made

I changed the text in three places. I changed Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls. to Moore had pursued several teenage girls. because the sources don't support the use of numerous and it apperas to be WP:SYNTH. I changed did not deny that he had approached and dated teenagers. to did not deny that he had approached and dated older teenagers. in the lede per talk consensus. I also changed had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls to had a reputation for coming on to older teenage girls again per talk consensus. Txantimedia (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the consensus version. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I did a couple more things to restore the consensus version: replaced "did not deny" with "acknowledged", and inserted that he "sometimes" dated older teenagers. --MelanieN (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks MelanieN. Your input is much appreciated. Txantimedia (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Older

For the second time, and contrary to the discretionary sanctions described at the top of this page, User:Signedzzz has just now overturned the consensus by deleting the word “older”.[2] Now, the sentence says the BLP subject acknowledged dating teenagers. Actually he partly denied dating teenagers, so the lead is now misleading. We can either fix the lead by restoring the word “older”, or else say explicitly that the word “underage” in the lead means under 16. But the way it is now is wrong. The word “older” is not vague in this context, and obviously means older than teenagers who are underage. This user already got the DS notice in January.[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Older teenagers" suggests 18 or 19, so that is deceptive. Stop adding it. zzz (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
One cannot "partly deny" something. One can deny part of something -- so do you mean he denied pursuing and dating some teenagers? That is the meaning of the current text, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Give me a break. “Partly deny” means to deny part of something. The current text (with “older” removed) does not suggest that he denied dating some teenagers, unless we add that underage means under 16. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus version does not (in context) suggest that he only dated 18 and 19 year olds, but rather suggests he dated girls who were older than “underage”, whereas the new Signedzzz version suggests he has acknowledged dating teenagers without exception from 13 to 19, which is false. Anyway you have twice now sought to unilaterally overturn the consensus reached here, in violation of discretionary sanctions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Consensus for using the unsourced deceptive weasel word: "We should use the age given instead of "older teenagers" which is unnecessarily vague. The WaPo transcript provides question and answer. --DHeyward (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)", "I agree that "older teenagers" is vague.... --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)" - That is just the first two opinions from the section you indicated, but it doesn't look anything like a consensus. Unsurprisingly. zzz (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
You quote User:MelanieN but she is the admin who ultimately implemented the consensus version. And you quote DHeyward who said “We should use the age given” but you have not done so. The age of girls he acknowledged dating was 16 or older, not all teenagers as you insist. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The article now says "Moore denied dating underage girls or sexually assaulting anyone,[5] but acknowledged that he sometimes approached and dated teenagers.[6]" I think that is pretty clear. zzz (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not clear at all because “underage” could mean under 13 years old given that we don’t tell readers what it means. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Needs ce. "Moore acknowledged that he had approached and dated teenagers, but he denied that any of the girls were younger than the legal age of consent or that he had sexually assaulted any of them." SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
If you insert “(16)” after the word consent that would be fine. Otherwise the reader may think it’s 13, and that he said he dated 13-year-olds. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Txantimedia: has added back the "older teenagers" in Wikipedia's voice for a thing Moore supposedly said except that he didn't say it (and even if he had said it, it would be hard to guess what he meant and would definitely need quotation marks). This is pretty unbelievable. zzz (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Baloney. In context, the word older means older than underage. If you want to explicitly say 16 or older, that would be fine with me, but please stop editing against consensus and against discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit, consensus is heavily against the use of the word in Wikipedia's voice, as I just pointed out a minute ago. zzz (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I got this pleasant message from Signedzzz (Undid revision 813433332 by Txantimedia (talk)fuck off). At this point, we need an admin to come in and fix this problem. I will not revert him again, but he has now reverted three times the consensus view of editors, which I also pointed out to him on his talk page. Rather than engaging in a discussion of the issue, he elected to revert the third time and leave that pleasant message for all to see in the History. Perhaps MelanieN could weigh in? Txantimedia (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • proposed text "Moore acknowledged that he had approached and dated teenagers, but he denied that any of the girls were younger than the legal age of consent or that he had sexually assaulted any of them. When the parties are not close in age the Alabama age of consent is reached at the 16th birthday."[1]

References

  1. ^ "Age of Consent Laws in the US". Retrieved 3 December 2017.
That looks fine, except possibly there is no need for the second sentence, in the lead, I am not sure. Also I don't know how accurately it reflects what he actually said. Simpler to just leave it as it is now ([4]). zzz (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Txantimedia: Your last edit put you over 1RR. Please revert it. zzz (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Signedzzz: You have already reverted my last revert. I am not doing any more reverts. I am filing an edit warring report, and I've already notified you on your talk page. I have tried to engage you in talk, and you have ignored me and reverted three times the consensus of the editors. I will not engage in any further edits on this issue. Txantimedia (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
"You have already reverted my last revert." That makes no sense. Good luck with the edit warring report. zzz (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Somehow, Signedzzz managed to make his edit where he told me to fuck off disappear. I have been asked to revert my revert, and I have done so. The text is now returned to the non-consensus use of teenager, rather than older teenager, and I refuse to fight this battle any longer. I am reporting Signedzzz to the edit warring noticeboard. We will let the admins sort it out. Txantimedia (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll put the first sentence in the article and leave the second for discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This has all been discussed before, and a consensus had been reached. Why are we recovering old ground and changing the text again? Txantimedia (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The cited source for the phrase in the lede "but acknowledged that he sometimes approached and dated teenagers" says this: "And while he called the story “completely false and misleading,” he said he “didn’t dispute” that he used to date girls as young as 16." Accordingly, how about just changing the problematic phrase to say "but did not dispute he sometimes dated teenagers as young as 16."? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I have filed a report on the Edit warring Noticebaord. (Report) I have notified Signedzzz on his talk page.[5] I tried to engage him in discussion regarding his reversions of the use of "older teenagers", but he ignored me and instead told me to "fuck off". At this point, the text has been reverted to the non-consensus version that Signedzzz prefers, and the matter has been handed off to the admins to decide. I resent having to do this. It's a PITA to file a report, and it's unnecessary. Simple discussion on this talk page could have resolved this entire problem, but Signedzzz decided to edit war instead. Txantimedia (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Offhand I don't see any actual edit warring here, as in 1RR violations. I do see problematic behavior here by several people - changing the article text even while it is being discussed at the talk page, something I hate to see. But let's move past that and focus on the actual wording. The most important consideration is that our text has to accurately reflect what he said, without implying anything he didn't say. The wording "acknowledged dating teenagers" (without "older"), immediately following "one as young as 14", was misleading and cannot be allowed to stand. Zzz then proposed a different wording, which SPECIFICO has added to the article. Actually it is not bad. It reads a little smoother than the original (consensus) sentence. I would just change his denial from "sexually assaulted any of them" to "sexually assaulted anyone". I would accept this sentence, with that minor change. I think we should not use the second proposed sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN, if none of the 16+ year olds accused him of sexual assault then I agree your wording is better. I do not recall whether he worded any of his statements to deny that he assaulted anyone of legal age. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting, MelanieN, since I was warned of 1RR on my talk page by Nomoskedasticity. I reverted my last revert to resolve that issue, but the text was then the preferred non-consesus version of Signedzzz. At this point, I'm staying out of this completely. You can reach consensus without me. Txantimedia (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There was indeed a 1RR violation by Txantimedia. I'm sure MelanieN will see it if she looks again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity: Yes, there was a 1RR violation by Txantimedia, but they self-reverted it so that's OK. Looks to me [6] like signedzzz only removed the word "older" twice, and the edits were separated by more than 24 hours.--MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Two other women accused him of sexual assault - one when she was 16, one when she was in her 20s. As far as I can see his denial was that he had never sexually assaulted anyone, without mentioning their age, and that is what I think should be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I think the sentence you added to the article should be modified slightly, to say "Moore acknowledged that he had approached and dated teenagers, but he denied that any of the girls were younger than the legal age of consent or that he had sexually assaulted anyone."-MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Right, I agree. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I changed it. MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"pursued"

That’s fine, but I again object to including the sentence “Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for pursuing teenage girls at the local mall.” I am picturing Mr. Moore chasing 13-year-olds, whereas this sentence adds nothing to what the previous sentence says he acknowledged. I can’t believe that this sentence is included while excluding that he won the GOP nomination for Senate, and excluding that the loser was incumbent Luther Strange. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking the liberty of starting a new subsection for this discussion. In fact I was just about to start one before you brought this up. I do think something along these lines should be included, because so many people have come forward to talk about his reputation with teenagers - something that many people have said was characteristic of him at that stage in his life. But I object to the word "pursued". The same word is used two sentences earlier: "During the Senate race claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued several teenage girls." Can we come up with a better word than "pursued"? Something to indicate he approached them, he courted them, he asked them out, he hit on them, he was interested in them - something? "Pursued" conjures up cartoon images of a stoneage man chasing a stoneage woman around a tree. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The sentence says, “Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for pursuing teenage girls at the local mall.” Who is being “confirmed” here? Moore? Someone else? We ought to say who. And if it’s not Moore, then wouldn’t that imply he was allegedly lying about this? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I can see that word is a little unclear. So is "independent witnesses" - this isn't a court. Maybe something like "In addition, many people reported that he had a reputation for approaching teenage girls at the local mall"? In that case it should go after the allegations and before his denial, rather than after it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that entire sentence could be omitted from the lead. It adds excessive detail out of proportion with the rest of the bio, in my opinion. I actually think the word "pursued" is OK, and certainly better than "coming on to". I don't see it having a particularly negative connotation.- MrX 21:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe I was the one who replaced the unencyclopedic "hit on" to "pursued", which I saw used in the cited source. It's all in the source that local residents and mall personnel recalled he had that reputation and that the mall personnel and business operators profiled him in that way. Anything, you have an unusual imagination if you are haunted by visions of Judge Moore chasing 13 year olds. I don't think he's even had to deny that. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. If we don’t even include his victory over the incumbent US Senator, then this sentence should go. And what difference does it make whether it was at the mall or the drive-in or the Dairy Queen or the public library? Leave it all for later in the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Well one could argue that being banned from a mall to protect young Alabamians is more noteworthy than a slew of "unverified" accusations. The former is from multiple disinterested professionals. The latter has been disparaged by various principals and media advocates. Full disclosure: I've never been banned from a mall. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Neither the existing sentence nor the proposed replacement says anything about him being banned from any mall. And witnesses who worked at the mall disagree about it. I think maybe some editors wish that we could say in the lead that he was banned from the mall, but since we can’t, heck let’s just blather on about the mall anyway. BTW, congratulations SPECIFICO on never having banned from the mall, we both belong to that same elite caste. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a caste is something you get by right of birth. The mall thing you get the old fashioned way. You earn it. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, we’re in that class together, and reliable sources say Moore may be in that class too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Are these the same "sources" who solved the Seth Rich murder last year? What RS says he was not on the watch list at the Mall? SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you are referring to as regards Seth Rich. Regarding Roy Moore, The Birmingham News says that Moore spent time at a mall in his 30s but has denied reporting that he was ever banned from that mall. See Gattis, Paul. "Roy Moore campaign disputes reports he was banned from mall", Birmingham News (November 20, 2017): "AL.com did not report that Moore had been banned from the mall but has reported that he spent time in the mall while working as a prosecutor in Gadsden." Because that is a reliable source, I stand by my comment above that reliable sources say Moore may be in the class of people who have not been banned from malls. Therefore this does not belong in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
"Pursued" is in the New Yorker source that verifies this content. The reports say that the managers at the mall were tracking him and were instructed to eject him. Nobody said he got a Dear Roy letter telling him he was banned from the mall. Let's stick to the weight of the RS reporting on this. He was non grata at the mall, whether DA on patrol or, as alleged, on the prowl. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Let’s agree he was pursuing and prowling for dates above the age of consent. He’s acknowledged that, and the lead already properly says so. Piling on in the lead about the mall is overkill, and it’s especially undue weight given that witnesses are giving conflicting accounts, and given that the lead doesn’t even mention he beat the incumbent US Senator. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Please translate to English "witnesses are giving conflicting accounts" -- Do RS state that he was not identified as a security risk by mall merchants? There's a difference between finding some denier and weighing the bulk of mainstream reports. BTW I think "prowl" is undue. Do you have a source that uses this kind of zoological metaphor? I've just seen "pursue." The more you come up with unsubstantiated claims that somebody or other has disproved the recollections of numerous witnesses the more important it seems to set the record straight so others don't make the same mistake. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not suggested to put either “pursue” or “prowl” into the article, much less the lead. Moreover, you’re the one who brought up “prowling” above when you said “He was non grata at the mall, whether DA on patrol or, as alleged, on the prowl.” He’s acknowledged seeking teen dates, so in that sense he was pursuing and prowling, but that’s kind of a pejorative description of what he did. Anyway, let’s allow others to comment about this. I say it’s redundant and undue weight in the lead to talk about a mall from which reliable sources do not say he was banned, especially since the lead doesn’t even mention he defeated the incumbent US Senator. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No RS refute he was on lurker-watch at the mall. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-looking at the lede here, I would be OK with removing the "mall" sentence. It's true that the allegations are important, but maybe four sentences is too much per WEIGHT. The "pursuing girls at the mall" thing is less important than the accusations and comments from actual women. And coming after his denial as it does, it almost seems positioned to contradict or weaken his denial. Let's leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As of now, there seems to be a 3 to 1 consensus for removing it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Request edit

Per the discussion and consensus in the immediately-preceding subsection (titled “pursued”), please remove the following sentence from the lead: “Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for pursuing teenage girls at the local mall.[3][7][8]” Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:  Done but how come you can't remove it? The page is semi-protected. CityOfSilver 19:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:CityOfSilver, it’s complicated. I have a temporary 0RR restriction on me, and this might technically be considered a revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: Got it. I don't think I'd ever seen an edit request from someone who's not locked out of editing a page but there's definitely no issue with you (or me, or anybody at all) taking an overly cautious approach here. CityOfSilver 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

According to Business Insider, Moore has a "history of far-right and conspiracy-aligned positions" on issues such as homosexuality, race, Islam, and terrorism.[177] According to CNN, Moore's "virulent anti-gay, right-wing views made him a national figure".[10] According to The New York Times, Moore "is a staunch evangelical Christian, and his often-inflammatory political beliefs are informed by his strongly held religious views".[178] Moore has been considered a "rising star of the alt-right movement" by The Jerusalem Post and an "alt-right hero" by The Washington Post.

Here, obviously, a non-neutral point of view is propagated. All these media organization were accused of a left-wing orientation(the american president, mediabiasfactcheck.com and mr moore himself). We also know that the general population considers most of the media organization to be "liberal" (see pew survey from March 19 - April 29, 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.232 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Age of consent in the lead again

As far as I know, Mooore has said nothing about not dating girls below the age of consent. The words he used were "did not date underage girls". 'Underage' is a vague, subjective term. It is not equivalent to the legal concept of age of consent.- MrX 01:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t mind saying underage instead of “age of consent” but the meaning of the sentence is no different. Heaven forbid we should give the readers a wikilink to underage sex given where it has redirected since 2005. I don’t think the opinion of MrX supersedes that of reputable dictionaries.[7] Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I must disagree with the assertion that "underage" is not equivalent to the legal concept of the age of consent. If you Google "definition of underage," it says "a person too young to engage legally in a particular activity, especially drinking alcohol or having sex." Moore is an attorney and spent many years as a state judge; he obviously meant the age of consent when he said "underage" and it would be disingenuous to insist otherwise.

That said, the conversation and recent edit made me go look at his exact words again. There are two linked sources at the end of the sentence at issue in the lede... the first one says that Moore wrote a letter saying "I adamantly deny the allegations" and that he "did not date underage girls", and the second one says Moore "said he “didn’t dispute” that he used to date girls as young as 16." As a result, I want to make the following proposal... let's swap out the current sentence:

Moore acknowledged that he had approached and dated teenagers, but he denied that any of the girls were underage or that he had sexually assaulted anyone.

With this one:

Moore denied sexually assaulting his accusers or dating underage girls, but did not dispute dating teenagers as young as 16.

Wouldn't that be a more accurate representation of what the sources say? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a definite improvement and it addresses my concerns. - MrX 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You should indicate that underage is under 16. You mention “underage” and you mention “16” but you omit the connection. Also, please use better sources than Vox. Much better sources have addressed this stuff than Vox, so I’d like to see a draft based on better sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
These are the source citations that are already in the lede at the end of that sentence. There was no connection between the first source and the second source connecting "underage" and "16," so I did not make one. If you would like to find better sources, please do. With better sources, a more accurate and refined sentence might be crafted. Until then, do you agree that the rephrased text above is a more accurate representation of what the existing sources say? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What Exactly is it about the current version that you think is unsupported by the sources. If you specify, then I’d be glad to get the sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What I have proposed is that the current version should be rephrased to reflect, as closely as possibly, exactly what was said in the cited sources. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Well here's another source for you, that says he denied assaulting "anyone".[8] Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that needs to be made explicit. That would be redundant, and it would just add unnecessary text. It's already clear that if he denied dating underage girls, but didn't deny dating girls as young as 16, that 16 is not underage. That's simple logic. If it weren't the case, we would need to explain the discrepancy, but there's no discrepancy that needs to be explained. -- irn (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" (with regard to salary from non-profit)

@Anythingyouwant: Regarding your edit inserting "which allegedly was", with your edit summary "No conviction so we don’t say he’s guilty":

There has not been an "allegation" of criminal activity on Moore's part; instead, it's simple a fact that he drew more salary out than what the non-profit disclosed in it's public tax filings. Accordingly, the Washington Post did not use the word "alleged" in their article either. Given that it is a undisputed (even by the charity itself) and does not involve a crime on Moore's part, why are we adding the word "alleged"? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead is this:

He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, which allegedly was more than the revenue the organization disclosed on its tax filings.

It sure sounds like an accusation of criminal wrongdoing. If what he allegedly did would be perfectly legal, then we ought to say so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I know we have discussed this before, but I would actually suggest removing that last part of the sentence from the lede. Or maybe the whole sentence. Leaving it in the article text but removing it from the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay by me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because a bigger scandal overshadowed this scandal, doesn't mean we should remove it. Any other politician, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Also, "alleged" doesn't belong in there, per AzureCitizen. Volunteer Marek  01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If we include it in the lead, do you disagree that we ought to say whether what he allegedly did would be legal? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
We should not add that.- MrX 20:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
We should absolutely not try to render a judgment about whether it was illegal. For one reason, WP:OR; as far as I know Reliable Sources are not calling it illegal. For another reason, if any laws were broken, it might have been by the "charity" rather than by him personally. But the bottom line is RS. Per BLP we would need unusually strong sourcing to say something this controversial about a living person, and the sourcing is just not there. I would still prefer to remove the whole sentence. We have people saying that his military career isn't important enough to include in the lede; by what possible justification do we include this bit about his charity? --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The lead presently says, "He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, though a far smaller amount was indicated on its tax filings." Surely the last bit should go ("though a far smaller amount was indicated on its tax filings"), unless there's an RS saying Moore was responsible for the gaps and errors in the organization's statements to the IRS and even then what difference would it make? After all, the organization didn't have to pay any tax because it's non-profit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
So I fixed it, and you still don't like it? There's no pleasing some people... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You fixed the issue in the subsection immediately below, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the lead accurately describe what's in the WaPo article?

The lead says:

He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, which was more than the revenue the organization disclosed on its tax filings.

The cited WaPo article says:

He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012, compensation that far surpassed what the group disclosed in its public tax filings most of those years…. A Washington Post review of public and internal charity documents found that errors and gaps in the group’s federal tax filings obscured until now the compensation paid to Moore….

The lead is making stuff up. WaPo indicated that the tax filings of the organization did not show all of the money it paid to Moore, because of gaps and errors. In contrast, the lead says Moore received more than the organization's entire disclosed revenue. I wonder how this misinformation keeps making its way into the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Easily resolved. [9] Whoever worded it this way didn't have a good understanding of "revenue" in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick poll: omit the last phrase?

How many are in favor of removing the phrase "though a far smaller amount was indicated on its tax filings" from the last sentence of the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove for reasons given above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Dump it. Vague. All those that understand tax laws, extend their fangs. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Eighty-six it. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Help me understand why we would note what his compensation was for the five years without also noting the reason that the source brought it up in the first place? - MrX 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Moore’s million dollars from the foundation is notable independently of whether the foundation properly reported it. “Roy Moore helped the foundation pay for his salary - which totaled nearly $1 million from 2003 to 2012 - by taking on speaking engagements across the country.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Kill the whole sentence - I'm still not sure why the Foundation for Moral Law (which appears to act only as an extension of Moore) is notable enough for the lede. I think its inclusion was because of a potential scandal that nobody cares about after the multiple other scandals involving Mr. Moore. The "$1 million" is a scare number concerning his salary over many years, and I'm still not sure what is specifically being alleged there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleting the whole sentence would be fine too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Me too. --MelanieN (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, let's just get rid of the whole sentence.- MrX 02:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep it -- all we're doing here is to summarise in the lead what appears in the body below. The Foundation for Moral Law is a main section; the content of that section is focused mainly on the salary issue. The wording is now correct, and it's not a long passage; not sure why we should remove it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Recentism, overweighting, BLP violations and untrue statements

I tweaked some burdensome language. Passive voice and such. I also altered the false statement that Trump strongly endorsed Moore. The source cited says Trump endorsed the Republican and said he was better than a liberal. Endorsements don't belong in the lead anyway and it would be weird and unusual of the candidates own party didn't endorse him. Why is it omitted that Trump and other Republicans said if he is guilty of the allegations he should resign? The whole lead is bloated with gossipy stuff. It should simmarize his life, career and notable controversies. His military service is omitted entirely.

Here's what the cited Guardian piece says:

At the White House on Tuesday, Trump talked to reporters about the race. “We don’t want to have a liberal Democrat in Alabama,” he said. “We want to have the things we represent.”

Press secretary Sarah Sanders also defended the endorsement, saying Trump “would rather have a person that supports his agenda versus someone who opposes his agenda every step of the way, and until the rest of that process plays out, you have a choice between two individuals, and the president’s chosen to support Moore”

FloridaArmy (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump's 2 tweets:

"Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama. We need his vote on stopping crime, illegal immigration, Border Wall, Military, Pro Life, V.A., Judges 2nd Amendment and more. No to Jones, a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet," Trump tweeted in the first of two posts.

"Putting Pelosi/Schumer Liberal Puppet Jones into office in Alabama would hurt our great Republican Agenda of low on taxes, tough on crime, strong on military and borders...& so much more," Trump added, referring to Moore’s opponent in the race, Democrat Doug Jones. "Look at your 401-k's since Election. Highest Stock Market EVER! Jobs are roaring back!"

Regardless, endorsements do not belong in the opening paragraphs. And if you put it in please make sure that Teump has made clear hw thinks Moore should resign if the allegations are true.

Moore's military service, he went to West Point, was a captain, and served in Vietnam, are impprtant biographical details that are covered in the body of the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • And I reverted you. Bull, china shop: please tread more lightly and acknowledge that you'll need consensus for making edits in an area where editors have been discussing matters for days. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Drmies. I was about to revert it, but you beat me to it. FloridaArmy, we need to go by what Reliable Sources say, and they all say that Trump strongly endorsed Moore. Even in the tweet you quote here: he does not endorse "the Republican candidate", but rather "Republican Roy Moore". Yes, he endorsed him because he wants a Republican in the office, but still, he endorsed Moore. And he has not recently repeated his earlier claim that Moore should withdraw if the allegations are true. See the discussion above, about whether to add Sarah Sanders' repetition of that point. She says it; but Trump hasn't mentioned it in several weeks.
I would be OK with including a sentence about his military service. I believe it has been added and removed several times recently. We should discuss it in a new thread. --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
FloridaArmy's paragraph from yesterday After graduating from West Point, he served in the U.S. Military as an M.P. and was a military police company commander in Vietnam. He graduated with a law degree from the University of Alabama Law School and joined the district attorney's office as a prosecutor in Etowah County. had some copy-editing issues, but was a good start from my point of view. I agree that the changes Drmies reverted weren't an improvement; the Trump ... has endorsed the Republican candidate phrasing was awful but in fairness FloridaArmy removed that in his later edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What source says he strongly endorsed Roy Moore? Not the one cited
I made several edits. Drmies restored some broken English (may have had approached) that should be fixed. Also a lot of fishy weaselly language. "had been deemed". It was a Supreme Court decision. Drmies removed the words Supreme Court. All of the he said she said stuff should be covered in the body. Totally inappropriate for a BLP to have all these gossipy bits in the opening paragraphs, especially several misrepresentations. Moore, his history and views should be described accurately and in keeping with our editing practices. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
How is "deemed" non-grammatical? Although it is a bit of a easter egg right now. Including Trump believes Moore should resign if the allegations are true in the lead is not supported by the consensus above. Everything else here is minor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Making this "he said she said" is pretty inappropriate in this case. These are hardly "gossipy" bits. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's a Google search I did for "Trump strongly endorses Roy Moore". Came up with literally nothing. Not one soirce saying that. Because it's a lie. Trump is clearly endorsing a Republican, any Republican, over the Democrat candidate. We shouldn't put false statements in a BLP. It's definitely not in the cited source which I quoted above to be helpful. And Drmies left in yet ANOTHER gossipy tidbit. The opening paragraohs summarize article content. Every allegationnand innuendo does not belong in the lead. Google search for strong endorsement FloridaArmy (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to endorse from strongly support. Supported by the guardian. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I did find a NYT article after my above post using "strongly endorsed", but only that one and other sources use different characterizations. I noticed the Guardian and another paper say 2 accuse him of assault. Sexual misconduct is the terminology used for the broader allegations. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Another problem is the hidden links. I didn't even realize there is a whole articlr on the accusations (should there be?). It should be properly linked at least. It's a mess too. And the way the Supreme Court case is linked (and worded) is improper. As noted above. Maybe ot should be in parenthesis as a proper link? FloridaArmy (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Nuance

@Anythingyouwant: I was surprised to see you add this (with the edit summary "nuance") to the lede of this article:

, though the White House maintains that, “The allegations are concerning and, if true, he should step aside, but we don’t have a way to validate that and that’s something for the people of Alabama to decide.”[1]

  1. ^ Jacobs, Ben. “Roy Moore rival: 'Men who hurt little girls should go to jail, not the Senate'”, The Guardian (December 5, 2017).

Nuance is all very well, and I have no problem with including this quote from Sarah Sanders in the article, but shouldn't it be in the article text - not the lede? The lede is for summarizing, and we have omitted many far more significant quotes from the lede while citing them in the text. This could go in either the "allegations" section or the "special election" section. MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to paraphrase it instead, in the lead? The position of the White House is not merely strong support for Moore winning, but also strong support for him stepping aside if the allegations are true. I would have paraphrased, except that the quoted statement is quite concise already. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Trump did say exactly this, back when the story first broke. Then he spent a week saying "He denies it." Then when he came out with full-throated support this week, Trump himself did not add any kind of hedge to it. This quote is a lawyerly footnote from the press secretary, hedged around with "if" and "people to decide". It certainly isn't "strong support for him stepping aside", and it's from an underling rather than from Trump. IMO it belongs in the text. And that's the apparent opinion of Reliable Source reporting, too. Trump's endorsement: headline. Sanders' P.S.: way at the bottom of the story, if covered at all. That's WP:WEIGHT. In other words, I don't think it needs to be in the lede at all - summary or full quote. This is the kind of thing we put in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The lede has too much on the recent sex scandal. I would remove The controversy led many Republicans at the national level to call for Moore to drop out of the race and everything after it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm OK with removing that through the end of the paragraph. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not OK with removing that material, however, we should not be including white house spin in the lead.- MrX 01:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Melanie is right that we seem to be living in an age when a presidential tweet is inherently more notable than a statement on national tv by the presidential press secretary. I originally saw it on tv, by the way, and then it started appearing in written news reports. Anyway, the quote at issue is less notable than a Trump tweet but it’s more notable than 95% of the lead which is not based on anything Trump said or tweeted. I would advise going with power enwiki, if the alternative is to only give half the White House line in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The important point is that Trump endorsed Moore. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. The other information about the RNC, Alabama Republicans, and U.S. legislators should stay, in a concise form.- MrX 01:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is Trump's endorsement necessary in the lead? It *might* be relevant enough to be in the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations or United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 lede, but I wouldn't support it there either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Because he's the U.S. President and because Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.- MrX 01:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Can't argue with that.:) O3000 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is it “spin” when the White House calls for Moore to withdraw if the allegations are true? It would be a smear for us to say that Trump supports, condones, or doesn’t care about child sexual abuse. Isn’t that what we’re saying when we dismiss anything to the contrary as “spin”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Problem I have with this in the lead (can we stop using ‘’lede’’) is not just length but that some have backed off their original statements and/or used more nuanced language. Better explained further down the page. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering the length of the article, the lead doesn't seem excessively long to me. However, we could shorten "Moore acknowledged that he had approached and dated teenagers, but he denied that any of the girls were underage or that he had sexually assaulted anyone." to "Moore denied that he had sexually assaulted anyone."- MrX 01:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Helps. His odd, non-denial denials or whatever they are, can be moved down. O3000 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, everybody. First, the lede (lead if you insist) is not too long. It is exactly the right length for a biography of this level of importance. Second, as per Wikipedia style, it doesn't go into detail or include extended quotes - except for this one, which is why I think it doesn't belong (neither as a quote nor as a paraphrase). Third, of course Trump's endorsement is important. It's the most important thing to happen since the allegations came out, and it immediately had important results in flipping the national Republican organizations and leaders back to "support". Fourth, I don't think we need to remove any more of the allegation stuff (it's already been trimmed by one sentence). Finally, I think including the allegations in the same paragraph with the election is exactly right. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The overall length of the lead (4 paragraphs) is correct, but I think there's a recency bias to the current version. It appears I'm in the minority on removing the Donald Trump came out in strong support of Moore bit; given that, the current wording is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted Anythingyouwant's change that made it read A week before the election, President Donald Trump came out in strong support of Moore, assuming the allegations are false, after which many national Republicans dropped their opposition to him.. Based on references like [10] I don't think it to be true; it's also awkwardly worded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I am very surprised that anyone here thinks it’s untrue. The source cited in that sentence of the lead is dated today, and it quotes the White House: “The allegations are concerning and, if true, he should step aside, but we don’t have a way to validate that and that’s something for the people of Alabama to decide.” Obviously, the President does not endorse Moore If the accusations are true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Anything, PLEASE don't go revising what's in the article, without saying anything to anyone, introducing your own undiscussed original research. We are trying to reach a consensus here. Note that I did not revert your addition although I disagreed with it. I came here to discuss it. When something is controversial, talk about it before you do it. That applies to everyone. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN already explained it quite well. Perhaps you would be happier if we wrote that Trump endorsed Moore because he doesn't believe that the nine women who accused Moore are telling the truth. You see, WP:OR is a double-edged sword. - MrX 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I would be happier to say that if it were supported by reliable sources but it’s not. The WH said today that they find the claims concerning but have no way to validate the claims and instead leave that judgment up to the people of Alabama. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The WH (by which you mean, Sarah Huckabee Sanders) did say that, in an obviously lawyer-prepared, cover-our-ass statement. And that memorized, twice-repeated talking point conveys absolutely nothing; it is an If-by-whiskey statement. Trump himself has not hedged his support in that way. Again: which of them are the Reliable Sources concentrating their reporting on? Trump's own comments and tweets, or the Sanders statement? Which of them is the president, and which of them is a coached flunky? See WP:WEIGHT for how much importance we should give to each. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I want you to acknowledge that the press secretary followed that up later by saying on behalf of the president that Moore should withdraw if these concerning accusations are true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Anything, you have said this over and over. And over. And over. Has anyone agreed with you? If not, maybe it's time to acknowledge: consensus appears to be that this is a relatively minor point which does not belong in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well on behalf of the president - and there you have it, that's the reason. It's not him. The key thing is what the President says, "we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama. We need his vote" , not what the press secretary says to cover his ass. starship.paint ~ KO 07:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Now this has been added by @Starship.paint: Moore has also offered contradictory responses on whether he knew his accusers; earlier stating he knew and remembered two of them, and later stating he did not know any of his accusers. I've already made a reversion, but doubt there will be consensus for including this in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I've sourced and and included in the body also, will leave for discussion here if you want to include it in the lede starship.paint ~ KO 03:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The lead currently says, “Moore offered contradictory responses on whether he knew his accusers stating he knew and remembered two of them,[7] and later stating he did not know any of his accusers.” But did Moore really say he didn’t know any of his accusers? Nope. According to the most detailed report available, he said: “Now with just two weeks remaining (before the election), pictures of young children - whose names are not mentioned and I do not know - appear conveniently on the opposition's ads. These allegations are completely false. They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women nor have I ever engaged in sexual misconduct with anyone.” So “these women” are the ones who were pictured as “young children”, and not all the accusers fit that description. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Anythingyouwant: - how can "these women" be "young children"? Children are boys and girls, not men and women. Unless he means these children grew up to become this women. Anyway, he said he didn't know the children, didn't know the women. Old video did not name. New video names the accusers, and the same photos are used starship.paint ~ KO 07:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There definitely seems to be a little recency bias in the lead. I have shortened the section on the allegations a little - removed the overly detailed stuff about the contradictions and removed a little repetition. Could be little shorter though - but these allegations are definitely one of the most covered portions of him - and the lead needs some reorganization I think. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

And now I see somebody has added this sentence to the lede: Moore has also offered contradictory responses on whether he knew his accusers.[7][8] We were just talking here about how maybe there is too much in the lede about the allegations; is this additional detail really necessary in the lede? I'm busy this morning and can't look into it, but what do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed it too. It should be taken out as it's too detailed for the lead.- MrX 16:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Debbie Wesson Gibson

washingtonpost.com December 4 2017 "when she was 17 and he was 34" .

Imo worth to mention in the article . I'm no native speaker and would appreciate it if a native speaker would do it. --Neun-x (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That's covered in detail at Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations#Debbie Wesson Gibson, where it seems more relevant, so I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. -- irn (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

White supremacy links?

Since CNN and other cited were claiming this was true, it makes one wonder if sources [13][14][15][16][17] are even true.68.3.198.4 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There's video and photo evidence of his links to those organizations (one of the sources is even directly referencing his campaign page), and Moore doesn't deny association. He just says he never noticed that they were white supremacists.

Antisemitism paragraph

I have removed a subsection about a comment Moore made about George Soros which was interpreted by some people as being anti-Semitic - i.e., as implying that Soros would go to hell because he is Jewish. But the comment was not widely covered, and this interpretation of it even less so. The comment could just as well be read as saying that Soros was going to go to hell because of of his opinion on things like same-sex marriage. IMO it is inappropriate and UNDUE to base a whole subsection, featuring an accusation like anti-Semitism, on a single, not-widely-reported, open-to-various-interpretations comment in an interview. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand this action. We might revisit the topic if there's more coverage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Moore/Archive_8&oldid=1137164626"