Jump to content

Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 9

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

Roy Moore Accuser Beverly Nelson Added Notes to Yearbook

Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore. [1] Let us eat lettuce (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/bombshell-roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-yearbook/
Breitbart is not a reliable sources. Information about her saying she added notes could be added to the Roy Moore Sexual Misconduct Allegations article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
She did not admit to forging anything; and this is a serious BLP vio. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
That's right.The original source wrote "Nelson has not done so but insists that Moore signed her yearbook, though saying she made notes underneath." - MrX 17:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Noting something under his comments is not forgery. It’s a little gross the willingness of right wing sources to misled.Casprings (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I modified the section title here; as it stood it was a BLP violation. About this new information, something could be added to the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article, where this level of detail is appropriate. Not this biography. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I've already done that - added a sentence that she said she added notes under it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

About that yearbook: User:Xcruser has twice added the "forgery" allegation to the "Special election" section of this article. They added this: Just four days before the election, Trump appeared at a rally in Pensacola, Florida near the border of Alabama and again endorsed Moore for the Senate as well as claiming that some of the evidence against Moore presented by a former female acquaintance was a forgery. I changed "was a forgery" to "had been altered" with the edit summary "he didn't use the word "forgery". Xcruser then added an additional source and changed it to "had been altered insinuating that Moore's signature had been forged." That is what is now in the article. I have made my one revert for the day, so I will leave it up to others what (if anything) to do. There's the issue of the word "forgery", plus the larger issue: there seemed to be a feeling here that the "yearbook" issue was too much detail for this biography, and should be handled in the "Sexual misconduct" article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about forgery so I reverted. I don't think we need trump's statement on it; that can be handled in the sexual misconduct article. Doesn't seem that important; the whole thing about trump's rally seems a bit much. I think trump's reactions are in 2 or 3 places in the article; needs to be condensed into one short statement. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Xcruser has added it a third time. I am going to remove that whole "yearbook" sentence as I think it is WP:UNDUE for this biography, and at least one other person here agrees. It should be, and is, in the "misconduct" article. But in this article we don't have anything naming Nelson or the other accusers, much less about her offering a yearbook as evidence, so it is inappropriate to have a sentence trying to debunk the yearbook evidence (which is not in the article to begin with). --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Pointless speculation & WP:OR, with no discussion of a proposed edit intended to improve the encyclopedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Let us eat lettuce and Casprings: forgery. 2. An … altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive. (Black's Law Dictionary.) By this definition, the "document" was indisputably a forgery -- as a matter of law -- up until the time the, ahem, unacknowledged ghostwriter corrected her original statement and voluntarily confessed that she'd written part of it. Since she's no longer indisputably trying to make that document look like something it isn't, it's no longer a forgery as a matter of law (although it could be as a matter of fact). Not being an authority on forgery law, however, I'd be glad to defer to someone who is... --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Whew -- I'm sure the "forger" (who is no longer a forger) is breathing a sigh of relief at your deference... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There is zero evidence she ever intended to deceive anyone – making your OR a BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Objective3000: You appear to agree here that this witness's voluntary confession amounts to clear and convincing evidence that her original assertion was false. As for its having been (at the time) "deceitful" in the legal sense, see Black's. deceit. 3. A tort arising from a false representation made knowingly or recklessly with the intent that another person should detrimentally rely on it. And at least some RS clearly support the point that (1) she made her original statement knowingly (or at least recklessly) and (2) her intent was to have voters rely on that statement. Has this outspoken witness -- or anyone -- furnished any rebuttal evidence that she made her original statement negligently or accidentally (rather than knowingly or recklessly) or that she didn't intend voters to rely on it? If so, I'd be glad to see that evidence so I can ethically withdraw my assertion. Bottom line: There appears to be at least a slight preponderance of evidence that her original statement was deceitful in the legal sense. And I'm not asserting criminal forgery, so I just need a preponderance to make my point above. Notwithstanding, MelanieN is absolutely correct in removing the material from the article, because many ordinary readers would reasonably understand the material as implying criminal forgery. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It was not a “confession” in any sense of the word nor “deceit” in any sense of the word, much less a forgery. And this is yet another BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Objective3000: confession. 1. An acknowledgment in express words ... of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it (my emphasis). And to repeat: deceit (sense 3) means a tort arising from a false representation made knowingly or recklessly with the intent that another person should detrimentally rely on it. When used in this sense, it does not imply "sinful". (I'm not alleging the witness sinned!) To conclude: I categorically deny your assertion of BLP violation; I'm not asserting bad faith on your part; I'm not suggesting that your comments were disruptive; and I'm grateful that the above discussion has been closed (for failure to propose an edit). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
A confession is a statement – made by a person or by a group of persons – acknowledging some personal fact that the person (or the group) would ostensibly prefer to keep hidden. There is zero evidence that she ever tried to hide anything. The added notes are below the signature signing the inscription in a style clearly different. She never claimed everything in her yearbook was written by Moore. We should not use evidence-free, contentious terms like this about a living person. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewording of the "Allegations" section

A few weeks ago MrX proposed a streamlined and improved version of the material detailing the three women's accusations of sexual assault. Currently that section of the article is very clunky and verbose. There was a lot of support for the improved version, but the discussion died out and was archived, with the result that our coverage of that subject remained poorly written and excessively detailed. I have used MrX's proposal as the basis for a streamlined version and have inserted it into the article. I'm open to comment on it. I think the rest of the section also needs trimming and other work, but this is a start. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting chronological information from the lead

I disagree with this edit which deleted his denial about what happened in “the 1970s”. I think it’s really rotten that this lead omits the timeframe. MrX knows very well that a zillion sources say this is primarily about what happened in his 30s, the Nelson yearbook says 1977. Instead we’re giving readers the idea that he is accused of doing this stuff recently. Wikipedia policy is to “Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't.” Obviously, User:MrX could insert additional sourcing if he felt any need for it. Instead we mislead readers. The body of this article explicitly says “he was in his 30s“, and explicitly discusses the 1970s. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please show me at least 3 reliable sources that say "Moore acknowledged that he may have approached and dated teenagers during the 1970s" and I will be happy to self-revert.- MrX 22:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
As you must know, I could easily list over a hundred such sources, some of which are already in this BLP article body. I'd rather not waste my time again trying to convince you of what is very obvious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Son Caleb Elisha Moore - arrested seven times between 2011 & 2015

Caleb Elisha Moore, 24, son of Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, works at the Foundation for Moral Law that his father founded. He has been arrested seven times since 2011, most recently for drug possession in Troy on Sunday, March 15, 2015. Troy Police Department.[1] Jeffery Thomas 03:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dean, Charles J. "People throw rocks at judges who live in glass houses. Should they?". AL.com.
No, no, no. Don't include this. Children of BLPs who aren't otherwise notable shouldn't be mentioned at all, and an arrest for drug possession definitely isn't a reason to include it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
He isn't some underage kid, but a 27-year old political operative, one of the handful of people who work at the far-right "foundation" that his father founded. His lengthy criminal record has also received a reasonable amount of coverage in RS.[1] All things considered, I don't see a problem with including it. It would be different if he were some teenager who weren't working politically on behalf of his father. --Tataral (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the previous talk page discussion about it is at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Roy_Moore/Archive_1#Son As I said there, I wouldn't mind saying "Caleb has a lengthy arrest record on various charges." But that's all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Leave it out totally. The guy is a private citizen, not notable on his own, and his arrest record is not relevant to this BLP of his father. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

ALERT: BLP violation in the lede sentence

Resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just reverted an addition to the lede sentence which I consider to be a BLP violation. The other editor immediately re-added it. I could revert again, claiming BLP as justification for violating 1RR but I would prefer not to push the envelope like that. Can someone else please remove it? I have asked the other editor to self-revert but I doubt they will. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Galobtter. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I now realize I may have also done one revert earlier today. But it's definitely a big BLP issue, big enough to revert first, ask questions later. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

conceding defeat

Detailed information about how Moore refused to concede defeat to Doug Jones (and then produced a video about how god would solve it all) is missing from the article. There are dozens of very reliable sources writing in-depth about this refusal (e.g. BBC, CNN, TIME, the National Review and the Salt Lake Tribune), but the article only mentions it in the lede for a half sentence.104.163.155.42 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a temporary situation; we don't need to discuss it in any depth. WP:NOTNEWS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS does not mention your rationale.104.163.155.42 (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

ADA years

Moore's attorney Phillip L. Jauregui per https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roy-moores-attorney-disputes-yearbook-note/

clarified that although the yearbook note says "D.A." (standing for "district attorney") beside his signature, Moore actually served as "assistant district attorney" at the time.

The yearbook entry says Christmas 1977. I do not see any mention of "assistant district attorney" in this article. Is anyone able to find info on what year he began/ended being an ADA? This seems useful to mention somewhere in his career just to see whether or not Jauregui is right about him being an ADA on 25 Dec 1977. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes he was an ADA from '77 to '82. Which would not have precluded him from signing a yearbook with DA. O3000 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This range appears to be supported by the WashPo article:

This account is based on interviews with more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982, when he served as an assistant district attorney for Etowah County in northern Alabama, where he grew up.

I'm wondering if we have an earlier sources providing this range though, prior to this year.

1979 happens 2 years after 1977 and 3 years before 1982. I'm not sure why an ADA would sign something DA... and also it appears that Corfman and her lawyer said she added D.A. so if she did that, it would have presumably been 1982 or later, when he ceased being an ADA and became a DA.

To know the upper range, do we know what years he was a DA for? 1982-???? presumably? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

He was never a DA. He ran for DA and lost. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh... this makes me wonder why she would add D.A. then. I also found this:

"In October 1977, he was appointed deputy district attorney."

From 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?utm_term=.2f3c0da10903

I'm not sure what a deputy district attorney is. My best guess is it is some synonym for assistant district attorney ? If it's the same thing then we can specify it was October when he began, rather than just a vague '77. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Could be he exaggerated his position (how unusual for a male to try to impress a female), or she didn't know the difference, or something else. It's not for us to speculate or analyze. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted defamatory BLP violation statements "has been called"

Using the passive voice as with "has been called" is a sneaky way to introduce defamatory allegations. For example, where is there any proof that Moore has an irrational fear (phobia) of homosexuals? I deleted part of a hit-paragraph. The whole paragraph should be deleted. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC))

The statements are well sourced. And most of this has already been discussed extensively. Volunteer Marek 21:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
(and attempting to argue semantics over terms like "homophobia" is not exactly gonna help you here). Volunteer Marek 21:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Passive voice is fine with inline attribution, as in “Joe has been called a doofus by Jim”. But merely saying “Joe has been called a doofus” without any inline attribution is atrociously bad writing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure the writing could be improved, but the content you removed was perfectly verifiable in many sources. There is no standard of proof that applies to Wikipedia articles other than verifiability in reliable sources. There is no need for attribution in this case. It would be impractical to list all of the people have described Moore's views as homophobic, racist, antisemitic and so on.- MrX 21:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Either state it in wikivoice or give some hint about who says it. Don’t be weaselly. Say Moore’s opponents said it, or most reliable sources said it, or whatever. “Some people who I’d rather not describe say MrX is a doofus” is weaselly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
As already noted, it'd be impossible to list ALL the people who have said it. To apply some category to them would also be OR. Volunteer Marek 22:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: I disagree that we are limited to the two choice that you list. As a summary, the material is reasonably written as a general statement.- MrX 22:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Has any reliable source said it? If not, then say “unreliable sources say....” That way readers won’t be misled by our weaseliness to think reliable sources say it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It's an evaluation that's widely stated by RS media. The sourcing is AOK and "widely is amply sourced. What's the problem anyway? You don't think he portrays himself as gay or gay-friendly, do you? SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
My objection is solely based on WP:Weasel. I hate it when we write "some people say X is true" or the like. Either say "X is true" and cite reliable sources, or say "X is true according to unreliable sources or Gilbert Gottfried or whoever". Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump opposed Moore before backing him

This edit strike me as a violation of WP:NPOV. If we want to say in the lead that Trump backed Moore, we ought to also say that Trump initially opposed Moore and tried to prevent Moore from being nominated. See “Roy Moore defeats Trump-backed Sen. Luther Strange in Alabama GOP primary runoff”, ABC News (September 26, 2017). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Not only does the article you cite not say that Trump opposed Moore. It even quotes Trump as tweeting:
I assume that this was an honest mistake on your part and not an attempt to insert false information into the article.- MrX 22:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I assume you are merely unacquainted with the facts. It is customary for a loser to congratulate the winner. Trump lost in his effort to defeat Moore during the primary against Strange. You seriously deny that? If you don’t deny it, then apparently you have no non-null reason to object to the edit, and I will restore it with the citation given. WP:NPOV requires us to mention more facts about Trump than the ones that put him in a poor light, if there are other well-publicized facts that are highly relevant to this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
You're saying Trump was a loser? You do realize he was not a candidate in the primary race for U.S. Senator from Alabama, right?- MrX 22:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you ever going to acknowledge that Trump lost in his effort to get Luther Strange reelected? Ever? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
No.- MrX 22:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I support honesty and neutrality in Wikipedia’s BLPs, and I oppose relentless bias and POV-pushing, so this will be going to a noticeboard when I get a chance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump Endorsed Strange

NY Times December 13th: 

Mr. Trump had endorsed Roy S. Moore, the Republican who was accused of sexual misconduct by several women and was narrowly defeated on Tuesday night by Doug Jones, a Democrat and former prosecutor. By early Wednesday morning, the president sought to distance himself from the loss by reminding his Twitter followers that he had doubts about Mr. Moore months ago. Back then, Mr. Trump supported Luther Strange, the Republican who was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, now the attorney general.

CNN September 21st: 

Trump had first endorsed "Big Luther" -- a nickname for the 6'9" former college basketball player -- in early August after his campaign coordinated with the White House for Trump's support. "Senator Luther Strange has done a great job representing the people of the Great State of Alabama," Trump tweeted. "He has my complete and total endorsement!"

The Hill August 8th 

President Trump on Tuesday endorsed Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.) in his special election campaign, dealing a major victory to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has signaled that Strange is his pick to win in next week's primary. “Senator Luther Strange has done a great job representing the people of the Great State of Alabama. He has my complete and total endorsement!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Politifact October 2nd: 

The defeat of Sen. Luther Strange, R-Ala., in a Sept. 26 runoff election was a blow for President Donald Trump, who had endorsed Strange over his Republican rival Roy Moore. Strange’s loss even led Trump to delete several of his pro-Strange tweets shortly after the election.

It is an incontrovertible fact that Trump endorsed Luther Strange in the primary against Moore. After Moore won he walked back his endorsement of Strange and endorsed Moore, but that does not change the fact of his original endorsement. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

He endorsed Strange, but that shouldn't be added to the lead of this article per UNDUE. zzz (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I see it's now been added to the lead that Trump supported Strange in the primary. This article is not about Trump, so the only reason to include this in the lead would be that it is significant to Moore, the subject of this article. However, the fact that Trump supported Strange in the primary is of no great significance to Moore, the subject of this article - and I see no one arguing otherwise. This pointless digression about Trump hasn't been justified anywhere as far as I can see. In any case, I am going to revert it, since there is no consensus for it. If you want to add it back, you will need to show it's great significance to the subject of this article, not make some spurious claim about being unfair to Trump and putting him "in a poor light". zzz (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant:I see you put "Citation needed" next to "reluctantly". The word is used in the citation at the end of the sentence. zzz (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Thx. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You really want a sentence about the final days of the campaign to go into the first paragraph, out of chronological order? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The order is correct, chronologically. Please remove "by promising to support whoever the nominee turns out to be", as that is pure WP:OR and not at all what the source says or implies, in any sense. zzz (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The cited source says:

Trump also seemed to distance himself from his own endorsement in the race’s final days. At the rally Friday to support Strange, Trump told the crowd, which included many Moore supporters, that he “might have made a mistake.” If Moore won the primary, Trump said to applause, “I’m going to be here campaigning like hell for him.”

You've put WaPo's conclusions about the Hunstville speech before our paragraph mentioning the Huntsville speech and before we quote Trump as saying he "might have made a mistake". You could just as properly (or improperly) find a dozen more characterizations of the exact same Trump statement to sprinkle around this subsection, thus giving even more undue weight to the "might have made a mistake" quote. Anyway, he absolutely did promise to support whoever the nominee is, when he said “I’m going to be here campaigning like hell for him.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You cannot just blatantly insert your POV to override what the reliable source says. This is beyond ludicrous. zzz (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
What insertion are your referring to? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz, you just made this edit which seems unreasonable to me. I quoted the Washington Post above, with highlighting. I'll do so again now:

Trump also seemed to distance himself from his own endorsement in the race’s final days. At the rally Friday to support Strange, Trump told the crowd, which included many Moore supporters, that he “might have made a mistake.” If Moore won the primary, Trump said to applause, “I’m going to be here campaigning like hell for him.”

How can you possibly say that Trump was not distancing himself from his own endorsement by what he said at the rally, according to WaPo? In particular, WaPo cites two things he said at the rally: first, that he would support whoever the nominee is, and second, that he might have made a mistake. All of this is detailed in the BLP section, with footnotes to WaPo. How can you possibly say it needs a citation? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This is what it said when I added it: [2] "The Washington Post stated that Trump "seemed to distance himself from his own endorsement in the race's final days."[160] Trump's efforts on behalf of Strange included a rally in Alabama, where he announced that he "might have made a mistake" in his endorsement of Strange, and emphasized repeatedly that he would support Moore if he won." This is crystal clear, and covers exactly what the source says. Not only that, but it covers it in exactly the same order the source covers it, although Anythingyouwant tried to move the first sentence for "chronological" reasons.

This is what Anythingyouwant changed it to " The Washington Post stated that, during a rally in Alabama, Trump "seemed to distance himself from his own endorsement in the race's final days,"[160] by promising to support whoever the nominee turns out to be including "campaigning like hell" for Moore if he should be nominated.[160]"

That is inexcusable in my opinion - with or without "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". zzz (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, you could just as properly (or improperly) find a dozen more characterizations of the exact same Trump statement to sprinkle around this subsection, thus giving even more undue weight to the "might have made a mistake" quote. I support deleting the sentence "The Washington Post stated that, during a rally in Alabama,[citation needed] Trump 'seemed to distance himself from his own endorsement in the race's final days,'[160] by promising to support whoever the nominee turns out to be including 'campaigning like hell' for Moore if he should be nominated[citation needed].[160]" It's already covered in the next paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
So you make it your business here to make stuff you don't like as incoherent as possible. That is what Active Arbitration Remedies should be preventing, in my opinion. zzz (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture?

The photo up top looks like it's from 40 years ago. Don't we have access to a more recent illustration to offer our readers? SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The caption says Moore in July 2011. Nothing better is at Commons:Category:Roy Moore currently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
If that one's from 6 years ago he has suffered quite a reversal. I think that must be an error, right? SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
There might be an error, but looking at the source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEsVodF9sHE the event where this photo was taken could have been May 2011. However the video is 240p so it could just be bad quality. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BLP: Should all the material on Roy Moore which lacks reliable sources be deleted?

BLP demands a higher standard than normal for an article, since if certain derogatory statements prove untrue, the promulgator may stand liable for libel and defamation. So what do you think? Are popular news agencies reliable sources for legal matters? When a statement is made about Roy Moore's legal situation (as with "Age of Consent", etc.) does that demand a lawyer's opinion? Have any of the sources actually indicated that they researched the actual law way back in the 1970's? Who has got hold of the actual Alabama laws at the time of the Corfman accusation? Or has any of this article's sources based its claims on a researched legal journal or book like Posner & Silbaugh: A Guide to America's Sex Laws? (PeacePeace (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC))

I don't agree with the premise of this question. Respected news sources are reliable sources for the purposes of this article, including for legal matters. So, no, we should not do a mass deletion of article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Premise is "BLP demands a higher standard than normal for an article." Do you disagree with that? (PeacePeace (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC))
Anything which is not sourced should be immediately removed if derogatory, but the reliability of sources can be questioned here or at WP:RSN. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
PP, That's not the question you asked. I agree with AQFK. There's no BLP issue citing RS accounts of the matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Timing of accusations

The sexual abuse allegations were made after Moore was nominated, i.e. after the primary. This can be (and has been) pointed out in the lead in three words or less. The only reason I can imagine for not doing so is to give readers the impression that Alabama Republicans nominated Moore knowing about these allegations, which of course would be a blatant lie. Yet we are definitely giving the impression in the lead that may have happened, even though it clearly did not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That detail is not a significant point that belongs in the lead. Also, the wording was jarring. I think it's best to leave it out.- MrX 16:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The only reason I can imagine for not doing so is to give readers the impression that Alabama Republicans nominated Moore knowing about these allegations That is so twisted, it's bordering on the absurd, and it shows no attempt whatsoever on your part to assume good faith. (If your worldview is so partisan that you honestly can't imagine a good faith explanation for the edit, how can you hope to edit this article neutrally?) The article is about Moore, not Alabama Republican voters. -- irn (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"it shows no attempt whatsoever on your part to assume good faith" - or follow WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It is obviously about both, and still I am waiting patiently for someone to give an even slightly plausible reason why the lead should mention these allegations without saying when they were made. Presumably we mention the allegations because reliable sources say they had a major impact on Moore’s campaign, but we very mysteriously omit to mention which campaign —— the primary campaign or the general election campaign? It’s ludicrous to say that doing so in three words or less would be “jarring”, unless it would “jar” everyone who prefers to believe that Moore was nominated despite these allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually we mention the allegations because they are themselves notable. Whether or not they had impact on the election. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
They are themselves notable, but the lead also very properly describes effects on his campaign: “During this special election campaign for U.S. Senate, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him....As a result of the controversy, many Republicans at the national level called for Moore to drop out of the race. President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election,[9] after which some Republicans withdrew their opposition.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is about Roy Moore, not Alabama Republicans. The lead is summarizing the article, that is, the noteworthy aspects of the life of Roy Moore, not the decisions of Alabama Republicans. That the allegations came out during the campaign and played a part in his loss is relevant to Roy Moore. That they came out after the primary but before the general is relevant only to Alabama Republicans, not Roy Moore. The reader's understanding of Roy Moore and his life's trajectory doesn't change significantly by pointing out that the allegations came out after the primary.
Also, not mentioning that it was after the primary does not imply that it happened during the primary. It doesn't imply anything about the primary. Indeed, it gives absolutely no reason to think it was either before or after the primary because the primary is irrelevant to the allegation's impact on Roy Moore, and that is what matters to the article. -- irn (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It obviously implies that it may have happened during the primary. Three words, people, you’re doing somersaults to exclude a mere three words.[3] Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because those three words complicate the sentence without adding any useful information. I'm sorry, but your edit was unnatural and not an improvement.- MrX 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Unnatural? What’s unnatural is to have a deliberately ambiguous lead, which spends sentences discussing abuse accusations and their effects on Moore’s campaign while omitting that they had zero affect on the primary campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody cares about the guldern primary campaign, except you apparently.- MrX 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: First, please assume good faith. Second, the point of this article is to report the facts as reported by reliable sources. It's not to make Alabama Republicans look good or bad. Your change is minor but also unnecessary. If anything, I think the lede is too long, suffers from WP:RECENTISM and should be trimmed, not expanded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Corfman's defamation suit

[4], [5].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the "Age of Consent" statement be deleted as weasel words?

Articles says: "but did not dispute that he had approached or dated teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama)"

What does "Age of Consent" mean? Since until about 2003 the age of marriage in Alabama was 14, Age of Consent for sexual intercourse must have been 14 in 1974 (assuming that marriage normally involved sexual intercourse). Now if there were laws in Alabama making fornication and adultery crimes, there could be no Age of Consent for fornication and adultery. I think the obvious meaning of Age of Consent has become confused with Defense vs a charge of Statutory rape. But then if statutory rape is the issue, then Roy Moore has not been accused of rape. How did Alabama in 1974 define rape and statutory rape? Did it involve penis-(or foreign object)penetration of the vagina? The question in Moore's case concerns the crime of Indecent Liberties and its definition in 1974. If the editors of this article really do not know much of this due to the difficulty of establishing what the laws were in 1974, then BLP should indicate that none of such statements should be in this article unless there are reliable sources to support such statements. Do the editors really have reliable legal information as to whether there was an Age of Consent in 1974 for touching a woman's vulva through underwear? Should the statement about age of consent be changed to age of marriage = 14? That much seems easy to document. Has any attention been give whatever to how sources define "Age of Consent"? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC))
I believe, though it may seem strange, that the age of consent hasn't changed for 50 years in Alabama and was 16 then in 1974 too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
""Age of Consent" for what? Should not the statement be deleted since there the issue is dating, not statutory rape with Moore. I never heard of an Age of Consent for mere dating. I think what is confused is defense to a charge of statutory rape and the age of statutory rape. Has any secondary source quoted the Alabama law of 1974 to show that there was the concept of Age of Consent, and what that meant in 1974? If the source doesn't refer to the actual law, it is unreliable. And it is altogether unreliable to refer to 2017 statements about what IS Age of Consent when writing about 1974. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC))
Do you have any reliable source that says the age of consent was not 16 in the 1970s? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I have found it difficult to get hold of the law itself as it was written in 1974 in Alabama. But whoever makes a statement in the article is the one responsible to provide reliable sources to establish it. Should we not refrain from making statements until we have reliable sources; in this case sources that reference the 1974 Alabama law? I don't know of any evidence that in 1974 "Age of Consent" was a phrase used in Alabama law. 14 years is the undisputed age of marriage in Alabama in 1974. If that is so, then it stands to reason that courting a 14 year old would also have been legal. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC))
Do you have any reliable source that says the minimum age of marriage was 14 in 1974? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Quite easy to find. Al.com for example,"Back in May 2001, a bill was introduced into the Alabama Senate that sought to raise the age a person can marry from 14 years-old to 16. But during a late night filibuster, the bill failed to pass. Lawmakers did not want to raise the age, according to an Associated Press report from the time." As to above statements about "sexual contact" being a misdemeanor, a source which says merely something like that is unreliable, since Sexual Contact is weasel words. If you ask a girl a date or opening a door for a girl, that is a "sexual contact," but irrelevant and adding in evil connotations. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC))
Also from Al.com: "The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail." Many states have confusing or seemingly contradictory laws, and it's not our job interpret or apply them to a particular case. Instead, we reflect what has been written be reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
So what do you think? When dealing with a Biography of a Living Person, is it enough to establish derogatory material from sources which do not cite the 1970's law, but give their conclusions without such citations? Now take this statement from the article:
"Moore denied the sexual assault allegations,[4] but did not dispute that he had approached or dated teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama)."
As written does it not imply that there is an age of consent of dating teenagers (contrary to fact)? Should the article omit the language "age of consent" since that does not say consent to what? And should the article refer to the age criterion for statutory sexual assault instead? And should the reference to this issue be limited to a discussion of the accusations of Marjorie Leigh Corfman, the only under age girl involved for this issue & be isolated from the allegations about dating (which if concerning decent-dating are of questionable importance? One thing I think I have learned from the discussion of "Age of Consent" is that this seems to be about crimes of rape or sexual assault, without any implication regarding the legality of fornication, adultery, or indecent liberties per se (canoodling). And thus far I have seen no evidence that in the 1970's Age of Consent was a phrase used in Alabama law. If someone has such evidence, I would love to see it. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC))

Age of Consent is not weasel words but either legal phrasing or not legal phrasing. I don't know about the Alabama laws and if this has nothing to do with any legal concept then it should be removed on that basis, but not due to it being "weasel words". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The BLP says, Moore "did not dispute that he had approached or dated teenagers over the age of 16 (the age of consent in Alabama)". It's well-sourced and informative, and so it ought to stay, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't even understand the argument. Age of consent is a legal term in all 50 states for a century. It really isn't disputable. How can it be weaselly? O3000 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
If it was a legal term in the 1970's in Alabama law, then can you kindly provide a reference to where it occurred in the code in the 1970's? Is the concept of "Age of Consent" consistent with laws against fornication, adultery, sodomy, and indecent liberties? The question I have is whether now in the 21st Century writers are taking a contemporary concept and imposing it on 1979. I think that two different concepts are confused: 1) the idea that 2 unmarried adults may consent and do sex without question of crime and 2) when is the statutory sexual assault crime obviated by consent? I well remember a trial in my home town way back when, when a man was tried for the crime of fornication, for which crime consent was no defense. To know the truth about Alabama, it seems to me that we need references in the 1979 Alabama Code to such terminology or evidence that it did not exist then. (PeacePeace (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC))

Wikipedia Definition of "Age of Consent" implies it should not be used in this article w/out proof of legality

The Wickepedia itself says:

The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts and is thus the minimum age of a person with whom another person is legally permitted to engage in sexual activity. ... The term age of consent rarely appears in legal statutes."
I see two reasons here for eliminating the "Age of Consent" 16 statement from this article: 1) there has been no demonstration that fornication was legal in 1979 in Alabama and 2) the dubious occurrence of the expression in Alabama Law in 1979. However, the age of marriage as 14 seems well established for Alabama in 1979. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC))
Age of consent exists in every state, existed in Alabama in 1979, and is not related to marriage. O3000 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
And reliable sources attest to this. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hate to say this; but it appears that the source we have been using for the age of consent in 1979 is wrong. It was changed to 16 in 1995 according to: [6] [7] [8] [9]. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Alabama not georgia Objective3000 Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yikes. I'm gonna be hung for that.:) O3000 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hahaha, happens. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Moore/Archive_9&oldid=1077846735"