Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 10

RFC about the lead

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A. The lead currently says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election,[9] after which some Republicans withdrew their opposition to Moore". Should we edit that to say, "President Donald Trump supported Moore's opponent during the primary, and endorsed Moore a week before the final election,[9] prompting some Republicans to withdraw their opposition to Moore"?

B. The lead currently says, "During this special election campaign for U.S. Senate, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him". Should we insert ", after the primary" immediately before the comma?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note. Regarding proposal A, several editors below have suggested they might be okay with a solution not presented above in the RFC question, namely removing all Trump endorsement info from the lead (e.g. see comments below by User:PeterTheFourth, User:Blueboar, User:dlthewave, User:Markbassett, User:Atsme, User:DrFleischman, and me).  So, further !voters should feel free to !vote about that idea as well.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey about lead

 * Support A, and support B as proposer, but instead of A it would be fine to just get endorsements (or at least Trump’s) out of the lead as suggested by editors below. Regarding proposal "A", that language was suggested at a noticeboard, and this BLP has a subsection about the primary showing that Trump's support for Moore's opponent was very widely covered by national media.  Omitting this from the lead gives the incorrect impression that Trump wanted Moore to be the Republican nominee, and also gives the misimpression that the primary was trivial rather than getting massive national media coverage.  Regarding "B", the lead currently implies that the Republican nominee was chosen despite these allegations, whereas inserting three words ("after the primary") clarifies that that's not what happened.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose A This article is not about Trump. The support a week before the election is important information, as it made the election a close race. His prior endorsement of Moore's opponent is of little importance to Moore, since Moore won; besides which, it would be misleading and disingenuous to mention it without describing how curiously lacklustre the previous endorsement was, as the article explains. zzz (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A Article is about Moore, not Trump. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not put words in my mouth. I oppose your proposed wording as it is about Trump solely, I do not oppose all mention of Trump where relevant (e.g. his endorsement.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome for the ping, I have accordingly crossed your name out. I don’t understand your position, but whatever.  I guess you want the lead to say Trump endorsed Moore and to omit that he ever endorsed anyone else.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose A, Oppose B per established discussion above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose all versions The part of the lede on the election is written in narrative form, and needs to be re-written to be in summary form. Simply attempting to monkey-patch the current version for "balance" will not improve the article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 12:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not mention the endorsement in the lead - The information regarding Trump's endorsement does not belong in the lead... at all. Trump's endorsement is something Trump did, and not something Moore did.  The lead of any bio article should focus on the subject and what he/she did or does. Including a statement about Trump's actions in the lead shifts that focus away from the subject (Moore) and onto a second person (Trump). Trump's endorsement can be mentioned later in the article, in a section on Moore's failed run for the Senate. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not mention endorsement in lead per Blueboar and power-enwiki. –dlthewave ☎ 13:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A and B, keep Trump's endorsement in the lead - These proposals have already been discussed at length on this talk page and at WP:NPOVN. Trump's endorsement is historically unprecedented in that he inexplicable waited for Moore to be accused of underage sexual abuse before giving a full-throated endorsement for Moore. The lead material, as it's currently written, balances the need for brevity, with the goal of summarizing the important points so that a reader could glean a high-level understanding of the subject by reading only the lead. The lead is the result of collaborative editing and is pretty good as it stands.- MrX 13:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While that may be a damning commentary on Trump’s actions... I fail to see the relevance to Moore (the subject of this article). Hell, Trump’s last minute endorsement didn’t even sway the voters. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's historically significant for Moore also. I can't think of a time in at least the past 50 years where a senate candidate who was embroiled in a serious scandal was endorsed by a sitting president. To leave that out of the lead would create an awkward information void in my opinion.- MrX 17:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it would be really odd to leave that out, I don't think anyone has even suggested it up to now. zzz (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way was Trump’s endorsement significant for Moore?  Did it get him elected? Did it prevent his election?  Does the information about Trump’s endorsement give the reader any insight about Moore? (I see how it might tell the reader something about Trump... but I don’t see what it tells the reader about Moore). It seems to be more significant for Trump than it was for Moore. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This election is a highly significant part of Moore's career, and Trump's endorsement was a highly significant factor in it which would need to be mentioned in the lead summary. zzz (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way was Trump’s endorsement a significant factor in the election? Did it sway voters to vote for or against Moore? please elaborate. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to make a judgement on that obviously, but it's worth noting that Moore did win the white vote by a significant margin; he still lost, but it was close. The point is, national Republicans were all falling into line and denouncing Moore, so Trump's intervention changed his situation from being a complete pariah outside of Alabama - with all the ramifications of that - to a viable candidate with the support of the President, and the other Republicans who followed suit. zzz (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well said.- MrX 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words... Trump’s endorsement had a significance in that it influenced people OUTSIDE of Alabama (people who could not vote in the election, either for or against Moore)? That comes too close to WP:COATRACK for my comfort.... sorry, still not convinced.  My opinion stands. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually my point was that it has significance (for Moore in particular) beyond just the election. zzz (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's totally relevant that Trump attempted to prevent Moore from being nominated and failed, notwithstanding that that attempt might (gasp!) reflect well upon Trump. And relevant too that the allegations were not made before Moore was nominated, notwithstanding that that fact would reflect well upon Alabama Republicans.  The truth is that the lead is carefully designed to inflict maximum damage on Republicans in general, and Trump in particular.  But since Wikipedia allows a majority of editors to do whatever the hell they want, that's the way it is.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why it would reflect well on Trump that he attempted to prevent Moore from being nominated in the primary? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I can. The lead of this BLP says Moore has "racist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic views...[and] past ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups".  An attempt to prevent a primary victory by a person fitting that description is an attempt that reflects well upon whoever makes that attempt.  Obviously.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think that would reflect well on someone who decided that because a politician was "racist, homophobic, antisemitic... etc. etc," such that they were going to support their opponent in the primary, and then if that politician still managed to win, then they would withhold their support at the general election (in order to continue objecting to their incompatible views, etc.) When someone opposes someone in the primary, but then does a 180 and gives them their full support at the general election, it becomes obvious that they weren't withholding support during the primary due to the racism, homophobic views, antisemitic views, etc, doesn't it? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Readers may conclude that, or they may conclude that Trump was deferring to the judgment of the primary electorate who felt Moore was not really guilty of those sins, or that Trump believed the sins of Mr. Jones were greater than the sins of Mr. Moore. In any event, it's extremely unusual for a White House to get involved in a primary and then to have the POTUS-supported candidate lose in that primary.  Last time it happened was to Arlen Specter.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The truth is that the lead is carefully designed to inflict maximum damage on Republicans in general, and Trump in particular. I repeat what I wrote above: 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 believe that the lead is designed to score political points, how can hope to edit this article neutrally?) -- irn (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s extremely naive to believe that political articles at Wikipedia are never deliberately slanted. But it’s admirable that you join me in disliking any such activities.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose both we need to be summarizing in the lede, not adding addition detail. Feel free to expand elsewhere. Artw (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem with keeping current minimal mention of Trump in lede. Artw (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)÷


 * Do not mention endorsements in the lead - that is not a significant part of the article so does not meet WP:LEAD, and apparently was of no major effect to his WP:BLP as he did not get elected. Allegations coming out after the primary seems more significant to his life of it meant he was the candidate and lost the election -- but I think it can be put lower in the article. Markbassett (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. I don't believe that this level of detail is needed in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A and Neutral B - The change to A seems to make the thing more confusing and offers information that doesn't seem to help the reader. The proposed change to B seems a little redundant. 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both & remove current text - if anything about Trump's endorsement is included in the lede after being challenged, it should be done using inline text attribution citing Trump's own words in the USA Today article by David Jackson on December 13, 2017, which is linked here: "The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election," Trump tweeted. "I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!". Factual, accurate and cited to a RS. Atsme 📞📧 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can consider anything from Trump to be "factual" or "accurate", especially in this case when it's so obviously self-serving. -- irn (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact is that Trump made the statement. Quoting what he said about his own position is a statement of fact. Quoting a journalist's or pundit's opinion about what Trump said is not a statement of fact - it's an opinion. Our readers can make their own determination of what Trump said - our job is to present what he said and cite it to a RS - not to discredit a BLP. Where is the factual evidence that supports the allegations against Moore are true? Our readers will believe whatever they choose to believe, and our only obligation is to present the facts (and all relevant opinions in the cited sources) in a dispassionate tone from a NPOV. The opinions of WP editors are irrelevant. See WP:EDITORIAL and WP:PUBLICFIGURE - If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Atsme 📞📧 23:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump isn't denying any allegations here. How is that relevant? This is merely a self-serving statement from Trump, justifying his actions after the fact. Sure, it's factual that Trump tweeted that, but so what? What would that bring to this article? An important part of NPOV is determining what belongs in the article. What do we gain by including a quotation from Trump congratulating himself for something he claims he previously thought but shared with no one until after it had happened? -- irn (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After the fact? No, it's updating information - WP:NOTPAPER. Trump tweeted what he believed about Strange and Moore as candidates during the primaries, which is supported by multiple RS and absolutely relevant. He publicly supported Strange and after the primaries had no choice but to support whatever Republican candidate won the primaries. Unlike MSM, WP shouldn't spin an article to promote a particular POV. You said in your comment directly above that "an important part of NPOV is determining what belongs in the article." I agree, but what concerns me is your very biased POV statement about Trump when you asked how I could consider "anything from Trump to be "factual" or "accurate", especially in this case when it's so obviously self-serving." I'm of the mind that such a proclaimed bias works against NPOV. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned but thank you. Happy editing! Atsme 📞📧 00:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump has a well-established history of lying. We cannot consider anything he says "accurate" or "factual" without further evidence. And when he chimes in after an election to congratulate himself for being right and offer a self-serving justification for endorsing a losing candidate, with only an unverifiable claim regarding what he previously thought, there would need to be a very compelling reason to include it. And we don't have that here. -- irn (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't rely on "opinion pieces" (see WP:V) and when we cite RS with known political biases and/or that are defamatory and likely to be challenged, we use inline text attribution rather than generalities, especially in those instances when other RS contradict or challenge the statements - refer to WP:BALANCE. Atsme 📞📧 15:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating the inclusion of any defamatory material or anything likely to be challenged or any opinion pieces. My argument is that the quotation you want to use has no place in this article. -- irn (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose both. I agree with several other editors here that the lead needs to be tightened up. It's simply too long. Both proposals add content that is relatively unimportant. I agree with others that the Trump endorsement sentence should be removed altogether. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both This is a biography of a 70 year old man and the already bloated lead ought to summarize his entire life and career in a balanced way. It is recentism to devote excessive attention to the details of the recent election. There is a separate article about the election campaign. I do not think that it is necessary to mention Trump's general election endorsement in the lead, but if consensus is to include it, brief mention of Trump's primary endorsement of Strange should be made as well. As for the timing of the harassment allegations, I do not think that such a fine level of detail belongs in the overloaded lead. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove A, oppose B Remove the line about Trump altogether from the lead; the information can be covered in detail later in the article. That level of minutae isn't needed for the lead section.  The line about sexual misconduct allegations can stay as it is, it is sufficient and concise and doesn't need additional clarification in the lead; of course in the body more details can go in.  -- Jayron 32 18:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both: this level of detail is not needed in the lead. Remove all of the endorsements: they really do not belong. Vanamonde (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Both A and B are a matter of record and not opinion. (And, of course, everything must be supported by yer ol' reliable, third-party sources.) Is there evidence of causation in A? In other words, did the Trump endorsement cause Republicans to withdraw their objection? We cannot just go and assume something! If reliable sources show causation exists, then we should mention it the way the suggestion has it. Same for B: If the allegations surfaced "after the primary," then this is what the record would state and this is what the lead para should show. Otherwise, not. Quite simply. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both: It is not an appropriate or necessary level of detail for the lead Gumsaint (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Omit the endorsement from the lede and I'm meh on the second one. I don't see that it makes a very big difference if we note when the allegations started, as it's pretty unsurprising that the cross-party dirt (no matter how true or relevant) started to be flung once the primaries were decided. Even if B ends up getting no traction and I were unfamiliar with the subject, I'd have presumed that the allegations didn't surface until after the primary. As to the first, someone said it best above: This article is about Moore, not Trump. Also per WP:SKYBLUE of course Trump supported the ultra-conservative candidate. We shouldn't need to specify it in the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about lead
Per WP:Lead, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". So, it's not necessary or proper to assume readers will read gobs and gobs of the article and thereby find out that the lead was misleading. I have shortened the lead today because it contained excessive material, but the material proposed here in this RFC is very brief and much more significant than the material I removed.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election" - how is that misleading, I don't follow? zzz (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's misleading because it appears to be Trump's first involvement in the campaign, as if he never had a huge rally in Huntsville, and never supported Moore's primary opponent.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. zzz (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand the concern that it would be misleading to mention Trump's endorsement while leaving out key facts. My opinion is that a "concise overview" of the overall article does not need to include the Trump endorsement at all, avoiding any misleading statements. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have reverted the edit you made to the article. You indicate there is no consensus to make the change indicated by Option A. That's true -- but it doesn't mean there was consensus to remove the entire sentence; that possibility was not part of what was proposed in Option A.  There's no consensus at all in the RfC for editing the article in that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. Option A that was rejected consisted of changes to the existing phrasing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to disagree with both of you. While it is true that there was a consensus to not make the change as proposed in option A, I also saw a consensus to omit the endorsement in the lead, which would in turn result in the removal of the sentence in option A altogether. Sky  Warrior  11:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only roughly half of the commenters said Trump's endorsement should be removed. That's not consensus, so the the status quo version is kept.- MrX 🖋 11:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the RfC were about the removal of the text, or presented it as an option, there would be an even discussion of whether or not it should be there. It was not, there was not, and I don't see the RfC which was not about that as endorsing it being removed or being kept, as it's pretty tangential. PeterTheFourth (talk)


 * Aside from me (obviously) supporting removal of the text, if half the editors who voiced their opinion want to remove it, and the other half are divided about what it should say, then yes actually, that is a consensus. It's not an unimpeachable one, but a consensus nonetheless.
 * However, if you guys want to put that question to an RfC, I'll happily repeat myself there and we can get a clearer picture of the thoughts on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 20 people commented in the RfC. 7 of them wanted the endorsement removed.  I suggest that people stop embarrassing themselves by suggesting that this is a consensus.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just counted ten editors opining that the endorsement doesn't belong in the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal life section in article twice, removed the first instance
I have removed the section on Judge Moore's personal life because the same verbiage appeared TWICE in the same article. At the beginning and towards the end. Not only is this unnecessary, but sloppy layout and section design. If a bot restores it, I will wipe it out again, or take it to a higher person at Wikipedia. Sjkoblentz (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism

 * Support restoration/inclusion of birtherism cite but not mention of Trump's position as it isn't relevant to this article. Activist (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)