Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 3

Maintenance tag
An undue template appears to have been placed on this page without an actionable description of the issues the placer would like to see addressed, except a general hunch that the article could me more favorable to its subject. Since this is not actionable and the article conforms to Wikipeida policies I suggest we remove it. Artw (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See the section right above. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the section above and frankly, it fails to state which content is specifically undue. Roy Moore, IMHO, creates his own controversy.  If anyone objects, then Moore needs to correct some of his behavior, the content seems neutral to me. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Its become a political thing now, so looks like we'll be putting in and taking out the utterly worthless tag like a pack of idiots. As memtioned above I'd suggest an RFC to resolve the issues, but there are no stated issues so that's pretty hard to do.
 * (Has that flag ever been useful in the history of Wikipedia? It seems to operate solely as a rallying flag for contentious editors. Nobody who has ever added it has ever done Wikipedia a favour.) Artw (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The tag has been removed and restored twice now. Clearly there is an ongoing discussion here on this subject. Both out of respect for 1RR and the ongoing discussion the UNDUE tag should not be removed until a consensus is reached here supporting that action. [I am off to bed shortly but will look in again in the morning.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the tag, because there was an objection that "section 8.9 and 8.12 add unnecessary editorialized debunking his views. Section 3.6 on his removal is in greatly excessive detail" and those concerns still seem to be valid and not entirely resolved.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Artw your refusal to read the repeated comments by numerous editors has reached the limits of my patience. If this tendentious editing and imputation of bad faith editing continues this is going to be taken to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have consistently failed to give a more detailed explanation for your tag, therefore it remains meaningless. If I had to guess I'd say it's there because you got into a weird ego-driven snit about it when I said the article wasn't COATRACK. Artw (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't find the consensus you keep alluding to particularly convincing either. Artw (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are at least five editors who agree that the article has NPOV and DUE issues. Our objections have been laid out in the insanely long thread above. Your continued imputation of bad faith editing is deeply offensive, as is your argument that there is a desire to normalize this man. Anyone who seriously suggested that this man is within the political mainstream would cause me to question their competency to edit the article. But there is a difference between reflecting the clear consensus among reliable sources that Moore is a political extremist, and composing an article that doesn't seem fit to acknowledge that some of his views are actually mainstream w/o piling in every story and reference that tends to make him out to be a lunatic. Seriously the article looked like it had been written by the DNC. DUE does not require balance where that doesn't exist in reliable source coverage, but it does require that all aspects be fairly covered, and that is not the case at the moment. It also means that we don't "pile on" with the negative material. Some of your above comments suggest that you are heavily motivated by an IDONTLIKEIT attitude towards the subject. I don't fault your revulsion, which I share. But your comments suggest you have allowed your bias to affect your editing here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose if that's the entirety of your argument and you have no further specifics I guess I should thank you for paying it out like that. I still consider it vague and unactionable, and the remedies that have been suggested contrary to Wikipedia policy. Likewise the tag remains unhelpful, as those a re generally only added in bad faith. Artw (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful for the editors with concerns to create a detailed outline of which sections are UNDUE, so all of us can review them. Let's all work together to improve the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Enthusiastically seconded. Artw (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good idea. I will try to work on that in the morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have begun a section by section review of the article. This is going to take a while but one issue I am already seeing is a shortage of references for the earlier sections that deal with controversial claims of fact. This could be a problem per BLP. While I am not removing any text, I am adding CN tags as I go along. In order to minimize tag bombing I am confining myself to a single CN tag per unreferencecd paragraph. But in many cases more than one cite will be needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove any CN tags where relevant citations are provided in the paragraphs above - those are just cruft. If you are not checking for this then you need to be. Artw (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If an earlier cite specifically references the same claim of fact, in other words the claim was already made and referenced earlier, then yes the CN tag can be removed. I am trying to keep my eye on that. But all claims of fact that are not obviously non-controversial need to be cited to one or more reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you at least move the UNDUE tags to the appropriate sections rather than have it at the top of the article?  Volunteer Marek  15:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hus answer has always been a vague "all of it", so until he works on the outline that is not possible. Artw (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the issues involve more than one section it is better to have just one tag at the top. However, I am sure you will be happy, so far I've only found a few spots, though I'm still early in my review. It looks like some issues may have been edited already. When I'm done I may suggest removing the tag altogether. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like you didn't actually do any initial assement of the article. Please go ahead and remove the tag. Artw (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No and no. And because other editors have expressed support for the tag, I cannot remove it unilaterally even if I wanted to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you've previously assessed the article and now might judge if differently due to edits that have been made could you summarize those edits? The article is largely the same as it was yesterday. Artw (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. Assume good faith and give him some time.  Volunteer Marek   17:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW most of the CN tags I've tackled so far appear to be related to fairly conventional points regarding Moore, of the kind the article supposedly does not include, and that he presumably would cover in depth in his autobiography. Not really helping the "UNDUE" case, though admittedly helpful as markers for where the article needs a little tightening up on sourcing. (If anyone wants to read his book it can probably be added as an additional source for many of these, not something I am up for though) Artw (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This tag clearly does not help to improve editing atmosphere around here. Quite the opposite. It is usually needed to attract attention of people to an issue. But there are many people already editing this page. This tag is a recent addition, and should not be restored if "challenged through reversion" as the banner on the top of this page tells. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Per the suggestion by Octoberwoodland what follows is a section by section analysis, which obviously is my interpretation and is open for discussion...
 * The Lead- Mostly Ok. Posting a reference to this "nickname" seems UNDUE for the lead, suggest remove. I'd suggest condensing the last paragraph to a shorter summary as this is covered in detail in the article.
 * 1.1- No issues.
 * 1.2- Added a few CN tags but no really major issues here.
 * 2.1- Needs more refs but otherwise looks OK.
 * 2.2- No major DUE concerns assuming this is all accurate, but it is completely unreferenced. That needs to be fixed as it involves controversial claims of fact per BLP.
 * 2.3- Completely unreferenced.
 * 3.1- Referencing again. Otherwise not bad.
 * 3.2.1- Ditto
 * 3.2.2- Ditto
 * 3.2.2- No issues
 * 3.2.4- No issues
 * 3.2.5- Eh. I'd prefer a few more cites but it's OK.
 * 3.3- Referencing
 * 3.4- No issues
 * 3.5 Overly detailed. Needs condensing. Probably UNDUE in its current form.
 * 4.0- No issues
 * 5.all- No issues
 * 6.1- The last sentence probably needs a cite though I don't doubt it's accuracy. Not bothering to tag.
 * 6.2- No major issues. One CN tag added.
 * 6.3- One ref link is dead and the other I am not sure if it's RS. Needs a cite for the election results.
 * 6.4- No issues
 * 6.5- No issues
 * 7.all- No issues. 7.2 has a very negative tone to it, but it's fair and solidly sourced.
 * 8.0- This summary of his views seems to be limited to the more obviously fringe positions he has taken ignoring mainstream ones. Does he have any mainstream political views? Based on this section an otherwise uninformed reader might reasonably conclude that he does not. Yet he is a fiscal conservative favoring balanced budgets and opposes high taxes. He supports gun rights and favors an originalist approach to interpreting the Federal Constitution. Whoda thought? This section is really problematic per DUE and NPOV.
 * 8.1- I'd suggest using the phrase pro-life vice antiabortion as I think that's how he characterizes it and I tend to favor that approach. In the same vein I think that for those supporting abortion rights we should use language like pro-choice or supports women's abortion/reproductive rights. But this is a minor quibble.
 * 8.2- No issues
 * 8.3- No issues
 * 8.4- This is not a political position. At most it's a religious belief. It might merit a mention, but not in this section.
 * 8.5- I'm ambivalent on this one. It is political but I kinda think it might be better if we created a subsection somewhere for all of the loony conspiracy theories he subscribes to.
 * 8.6- No issues.
 * 8.7- Meh. This section might be making too much of something whose link to Moore doesn't look all that strong. Not sure.
 * 8.8- No issues.
 * 8.9- This is not a political issue. It's a religious belief. Doesn't belong here. I'm not sure it warrants any mention at all but if it does, it belongs elsewhere.
 * 8.10- This seems to be focusing on a minor issue that's garnering some short term attention just to get in a quick "He was wrong!" shot. In addition to DUE and NPOV I'd also cite RECENTISM. This is far too trivial and should probably go.
 * 8.11- No issues.
 * 8.12- Ditto
 * 8.13- This seems excessive in detail and probably should be condensed. Do we need to catalog every homophobic aspect of his life? The first sentence in the fourth paragraph needs to go. What amounts to a no comment reply to a question doesn't belong in the article.
 * 8.14- In the first paragraph, the first sentence is fine. Everything after that seems excessive and UNDUE. The 2nd paragraph is fine.
 * 8.15- No issues


 * A few concluding thoughts: The bulk of the DUE issues are in the section dealing with his political views which others have also pointed to. The other issues is weak referencing, mostly in the earlier sections of the article. That is a problem given that in some cases it involves controversial claims about a person, who is one of the most polarizing figures in the US. I do have other things I need to attend to both on wiki and in the real world. I will try to get back here a little later in the day. In the meantime please do discuss the issues I've pointed to and feel free to raise any that I might have missed. The sooner we can reach consensus on them and move on the better for the article and the project. Courtesy Ping, , , , , , , . -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking it over. I tagged a few sections, created a new section for non-political beliefs, and re-worded the anthem stuff because it's not clear to me he was calling for incarceration.  Will check in here now and then.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Page appears largely free of citation issues now. Artw (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My comments on the above list:
 * I agree that nothing should be left unsourced. Now that that the text has been tagged, I'm sure cites will be added forthwith.
 * 8.0: These are the political positions that have been extensively covered in sources. The fact that his (as you call it) mainstream positions are not represented in the article are because they have not been extensively covered in sources. Isn't this how WP:DUEWEIGHT is supposed to work?
 * 8.4 (now 8.2): I agree.
 * 8.9 (now 8.7): I agree.
 * 8.10 (now 8.8): I think this section could go, although other editors may disagree.
 * 8.13 (now 8.11): First, let's review: Moore is most notable for the 10 commandments fiasco; his virulent views and actions with respect to LGBT rights; and apparently now for not generally molesting a child. I don't see anything in the LGBT rights section that is not highly significant. Every word is relevant to his tenure as a judge, and even more so now that he running for the highest legislative office in the United States. There may be a way to trim a couple of words from the second or third paragraph, but I'm at loss how to without loosing important context.
 * 8.14 (now 8.12): The overall content is important but could probably be trimmed to about half the length.- MrX 20:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I endorse MrX's view, particularly as far as the (seemingly-long) LGBT section not being undue. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur re the section on his medieval attitudes towards homosexuality. The subject is very important, but the amount of material is overkill. Cut it in half and there's no danger of anyone misunderstanding what this man believes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that idea, but I would be interested in what sentence(s) you think should be cut. Maybe I missed something.- MrX 23:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * An absolutely outstanding job on fixing the article and making it adhere to NPOV. I commend the editors who worked together on it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Efforts to delay the election as a result of the allegations
.  Volunteer Marek  21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well he would say that, wouldn't he - I think we can do without adding this if that's what you're suggesting. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that the fact that Republicans are trying to delay the Senate election until this blows over is notable and should be added to the article. More sources, , .  Volunteer Marek   01:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned at the very end of the 'alleged sexual encounters' section already, though on further thought I suppose we could elaborate on the attempts and associated criticism. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The women "say Moore did not force them to do anything"
Is this accurate? Genuine question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Very questionable and murky territory with a 32 year old and kids under 18. I also note that the current lede has Moore denying any contact with ANY teenagers, which is innacurate per what he's admired to in interviews. Artw (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, the lead is now incoherent - apparently the behaviour was inappropriate and yet consensual and perfectly fine at the same time. This isn't NPOV, this is muddying the waters and it's making the article look ridiculous. --RevivesDarks (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Article body says “These three women said that Moore did not force them into having a relationship or non-consensual sexual contact.” Is that inaccurate?  The cited source says “None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede seems pretty clear on which one he did do that with without the qualifier. And it breaks the following sentence. Remove as cruft. Artw (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says other things as well -- including that he provided them with alcohol, despite their not being of legal age to drink it. Getting someone drunk undermines the notion that they consented.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We now simultaneously state, in the space of two sentences, that four women accused Moore of inappropriate sexual behaviour and that three of them say he didn't force them to do anything (they are, of course, on record in the source as saying that they found his behaviour troubling and inappropriate, but nevermind that) This is obviously less than ideal wording and could be interpreted by a casual reader as contradicting itself. Remove. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove which? Only the reliably-sourced info that is not damaging to the BLP subject?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would hope that all information in this article is reliably sourced and if it is not it should be removed. The fundamental fact, according to RS, is that he was accused of inappropriate behaviour generally. I am concerned with the readability of the lead and not allowing it to turn into a bloated mess of counterarguments. It should summarise everything as briefly as possible and let the article body do the job of explaining the allegations in as much detail as is deemed appropriate. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This did not remove lengthy counterarguments. It removed very brief undisputed facts that are necessary for NPOV.  No one will believe this BLP if it’s a shameless hit job, which is unfortunate because the incident with the 14-year-old looks very serious.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We should reflect what the sources say. Did all three say they got “drunk”?  If so, that may belong in the lead with Moore’s denial.  I strongly object to removal of the clearly well-sourced statement that “the others were above the legal age of consent and say Moore did not force them to do anything”.  It’s WaPo.  Are they not anti-Moore enough for you?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We reflect the sources. We have the main body of the article if we want to put in any additional back and forth over the exact parameters of Moores behaviour or the drinks offer. Artw (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What you removed is not the drinks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The drinks are not mentioned in the lead and never have been. Hashing every possible aspect of Moore's alleged behaviour out in the lead is ludicrous and will inevitably lead to an unreadable tit-for-tat mess. We should merely state the allegations in a summarised way in the lead and go into the details in the main body. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead presently suggests and implies very strongly that the three women were not at the age of consent, and that Moore forced them into some sort of sexual situation. All of that is blatantly false according to a very simple and understandable statement by the Washington Post.  People here seriously want to argue with the Washington Post about this, on the basis that Moore got the three women “drunk” when no reliable source says they were “drunk”?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead does not suggest that all were under the age of consent. That is no more implied than the notion that his supplying them with alcohol means that they were drunk.  You seem to want to see one implication but not the other.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead says 'inappropriate sexual behaviour' which is as succinct a summary of the RS as possible, in keeping with the purpose of an article lead. As far as statements that could imply things go, that one seems pretty careful to me. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When speaking of crimes and potential crimes, I don’t think vaguely lumping one type of thing with another is accurate, but rather is misleading. Many readers will see it that way too, and will stop reading as soon as they see it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead calls them all teens, says the youngest was 14, and says the relationships were inappropriate. It speaks for itself.  In contrast, WaPo says Moore did not force the older three to do anything, which strongly implies he did not get them drunk.  Apples and oranges.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is just a bugbear of mine, but could we refrain from trying to use WP:BLP when discussing well sourced material that has been given due weight? BLP does not mean hiding or minimizing such material to make the article "nicer", it means using proper attention with such material - something we've been pretty scrupulous with here - possibly overly so. Artw (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

something to note is one reason its illegal to have sex with minors is they are believed to be too young to give consent, that they are too young to understand the possible consequences, etc. So claiming contact with minors was "consensual" conflicts with the view that minors cannot give consent. A more accurate decsription would be he did not force himself on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boriz The Spider (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ayatollah of Alabama
Should the phrase "Ayatollah of Alabama" be included in the lead? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say no, but coming as it does from the President of the SPLC I would say it is defensible in the context of Moore's well-documented views. --RevivesDarks (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It's not a phrase that you regularly see in coverage of him, and it adds nothing to the lede. There is no space to waste in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconding. Artw (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 05:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is commonly used to described his theocratic views. Obviously it is not used by the right-wing media, but doesn't mean it should be censored.Eccekevin (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No per UNDUE and POV. It seems to have be a popular phrase among some of his critics but it does not have enough coverage to justify being in the lead. I do however agree that mentioning it in the article is reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not in the lead. The accusation regarding the 14-year-old is a very serious criminal charge.  Adding a bunch of silly name-calling into the lead dilutes, obscures, and discredits what’s really important in the lead, such as the stuff about the 14-year-old.  Let’s just give readers the important facts in the lead, because turning it into a propagandist lead will be obvious to readers, not to mention contrary to Wikipedia policy.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No: Not only is this nickname have very little coverage and notability -- much less to include in the intro -- but it is a derogatory nickname, probably invented very recently by people who abhor him and used only by them (and this is a WP:BLP). In addition, the fact that the president of the SPLC used the nickname is actually another reason to keep it out, as the organization has zero credibility with the conservative half of the U.S., especially with the incidents of the past few years. The SPLC using this nickname is like hypothetically adding a nickname created by the Alliance Defending Freedom on Hillary Clinton's article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No - not in lede, yes in text.  Volunteer Marek   18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)