Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 4

Sexual accusations
These absolutely must be discussed on the talk page before adding it to the article. So discuss. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC) "Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman, who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. She says they did not have intercourse.

In a written statement, Moore denied the allegations.

“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign,” Moore, now 70, said."

Help me out. A reputable newspaper reported allegations by a woman that Moore touched her sexually when she was underage. This is corroborated by her mother, childhood friends and court records from the time placing her at the time of the alleged incident. Three other women said he was also sexually interested in them when they were under 18. The campaign denies this. All these things should be known by wikipedia readers. Marsh17 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , what's the protocol for dealing with this type of content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When the issue has been picked up by other sources, we won't end up omitting it here. Okay to wait a day or three.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * to discuss this addition on the talk page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm at 3RR, and the sheer volume of people adding it suggests there is a consensus for including it, so I'm not planning to do any more removals of this. Can someone at least put the content in the 2017 election section, though? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is being picked up by other sources like CBS News, USA Today, The Hill, and Politico. We do have to be careful how we word any content added to this article.- MrX 19:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

We must follow Wikipedia policy. The policy is WP:NPV:


 * This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus....


 * Due and undue weight


 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. [3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, the way to determine whether a particular topic in the article has due or undue weight is to see how prominent those viewpoints are in WP:RS. If a viewpoint is repeated in multiple WP:RS, then it meets WP:UNDUE and belongs in the article. This story has been picked up by The Hill, Politico, USA Today, Axios, NBC, and other WP:RS]. (I'm deliberately leaving out arguably partisan sources like Mother Jones and Breitbart to avoid arguments about whether they are [[WP:RS, even though I think they are.)

That should establish weight. For that reason, the charges should go into the article. --Nbauman (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an issue with WP:NPOV because adding unsubstantiated text that, in its form on here, constitutes a passive-aggressive accusation that Moore is a pedophile rapist a month before the special election day is not the sort of behavior you'll see from a neutral, nonpartisan observer. I wonder what User:Marsh17 read that supports the claim "This is corroborated by her mother [and] childhood friends" because it couldn't have been that WaPo article. You should read the entire thing but if you can't, the first two words of its headline make clear that this story is primarily comprised of one woman's allegations. Quotes from her mother and friends are hearsay and the court records prove nothing but that the woman's mother was at that courthouse on that day. I also wonder what policy or guideline Marsh17 read on Wikipedia that supports their idea that "all these things should be known by wikipedia readers" because they didn't link to it.

It's also an issue per WP:WEIGHT because if someone has spent a lot of time as a controversial, highly visible public figure, their article would double in size if we were to start list every allegation regardless of what kind of traction they had. It's unfortunate because I believe the woman is showing a lot of courage by coming forward now, I think she's telling the truth, and I hope this torpedoes Moore's campaign. But until it does, we don't know if it'll endure. (Because if he wins, nobody will remember any of this.)  City O f  Silver  19:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether the accusers are credible or whether the accusation is correct. Our job is limited to seeing whether it has been published in multiple WP:RS. If it has been published in multiple WP:RS, then it meets the test for weight. -- Nbauman (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's now the leading story on Google News, with at least 70 stories in major media. https://news.google.com/news/story/d_Vcif-499NHFRMUTraZE3BrrdoqM?ned=us&hl=en&gl=US So it clearly goes in the Wikipedia entry. --Nbauman (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. Normally, per BLP we would not report unverified allegations against a living person. But does BLP trump the massive (one might say hysterical) coverage? We need to catch our breath and give it a moment's thought. We have enormous coverage but all the stories seem to be based on the one Washington Post report. We normally require significant coverage from multiple sources for something like this. Right now all the sources are derivative from WaP, with no independent reporting except for reaction statements (all of them carefully hedged with "if the allegations are true…"). Do the derivative reports count as coverage from multiple sources? I'm going remove it and full-protect the page, just for a few hours, to stop the edit warring and give us a chance to discuss the issue here. Please state your recommendation below BRIEFLY and give a POLICY-BASED reason for it. MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick survey: include or not?

 * Include but not in the lead section, and word very carefully. Unless the page is left full-protected I think it's impossible to keep it out, and as long as it's worded conservatively ("physical relationships with teenagers" over "sexually molested children") it should be fine as far as BLP concerns. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify: if Moore drops out of the race (or loses) as a result of these allegations, they should be in the lead. But not yet (though maybe at United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include, of course. This is not a close call: the sources are prominent and reputable (the WaPo piece is "based on interviews with more than 30 people who said they knew Moore between 1977 and 1982"), the issue is significant, and the content is relevant to the article subject. We should of course should be careful about wording, but that's easily done, by tracking what the sources say. We also should note Moore's denial, but again that can be done in a short sentence. Neutralitytalk 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Includeing it is a no-brainer. And yes, it should go in the lede section. Hell, before the day is over this might need its own article. Responses and all that (like Alabama Republicans saying they'd vote for Moore "even if" the allegations are true).  Volunteer Marek   21:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling this is going to sprawl and .  Volunteer Marek   22:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh Jesus!- MrX 22:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Include - There's already a substantial amount of news coverage about this and several U.S. Congress members have even commented on the seriousness of the allegations. I agree with Neutrality that it's not even a close call. At this point, I'm not sure it is lead worthy, but in the next few days it may develop into something that is.- MrX 21:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ETA: To answer MelanieN's request. The policy based reason is WP:WEIGHT and WP:PUBLICFIGURE.- MrX 22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Include Hi. Right before the article was locked, I made an edit to try to clarify the wording related to the accusations against Roy Moore. I looked to Kevin Spacey as an example; that article mentions the age of one of his accusers, while establishing that others of indeterminate age had made other accusations. *In that article the accusations are above the fold.* The wording I proposed mirrored that article as closely as possible. WP:BLP requires that we try to maintain NPOV, refrain from original research, and adhere to verifiability. The source in question followed all the guidelines of WP:RS as a major newspaper. Very clearly, women of various ages made accusations. One would have been below the age of consent. All of that is factually accurate and represents that these are accusations and not convictions. Captainktainer * Talk 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include in the article, obviously; covered by many RS and relevant to Moore. Unsure on whether to include in the lede. I've raised similar concerns in the Kevin Spacey talk page that recent stories should not be prominently displayed in the lede because it gives UNDUE weight to them. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include -- Given the rather large number of congressmen that have made statements so quickly, it appears to be DUE. I wouldn’t put it in the lead yet. But, it will probably merit the lead soon. O3000 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Well sourced, major news that is impacting an ongoing election. It's WP:DUE to include, would be a major omission. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WEIGHT -- it is getting major traction in reliable sources, with senior Republicans calling on him to withdraw from the Senate race. Silly to exclude it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most called for him to withdraw if he did something. McCain called for withdrawal period. O3000 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Include" is clear consensus. I will restore the paragraph to the article text. We still have an hour or two of protection to decide whether it should go in the lede. This is to determine whether it goes in the lede based on the current situation. Obviously we would re-evaluate if the allegations turn out to have a major impact, such as withdrawing from the race. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my request on your user talk page. By the way, full protection was unnecessary and not a warranted under policy.- MrX 23:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD. Edit warring is the most common justification for full protection, and the article was getting heavily edit warred. The full protection will expire in an hour or two - but if the edit warring resumes it may be necessary to reimpose it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Include; I think the Captainktainer's, was properly nuanced both in the detail section and in the lead, and in compliance with issues of weight/undue weight and reliable sources. This story is as lead-worthy as the preceding lead paragraph, discussing "Moore collected $1 million in undisclosed payments to himself from the Foundation for Moral Law ..." —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * include unquestionably. Artw (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. Worldwide coverage, this is his primary claim to fame now, certainly from a global perspective. --Tataral (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. For the reasons stated above. Fluous (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick survey: include in the lede, or not?
We don't have a consensus on this. Counting the section above I see three "yes", one "maybe", and four "no." --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, unless further developments occur later this month in the scale of the Weinstein scandal. Otherwise, I believe it would be UNDUE weight for the lede. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the weight currently given to campaign-related issues in the lede, it might be reasonable; however, any such mention should be limited to a sentence at most given the weight given to the 2017 special election in the lead. Mélencron (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No Yes, however this controversy could sink his campaign, if not his career, so it may rise to lead worthy in the near future.- MrX 23:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that this is a major controversy that is not going away anytime soon. Given that two Senators have withdrawn endorsements, and Moore has received sharp rebuke from Mitt Romney, John McCain, Adam Kinzinger, and others, this is likely to be single most notable thing in Moore's checkered career.- MrX 15:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sourced to reliable sources, and as significant as the lead paragraph discussing "Moore collected $1 million in undisclosed payments to himself from the Foundation for Moral Law ..." And there should be a or similar template at the top. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - merits a sentence or two. Neutralitytalk 00:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tough one. I hate the whole NEWS aspect of this, but this is how quickly we "update" other articles. I'm going with no since that may be the last principle I have in life. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it clear that mine isn't a "yes" (or "no", for that matter) – only a conditional based on consensus for inclusion. Mélencron (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Brr. The thought of intercourse with Judge Moore. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Patience – If it belongs in the lead, that’ll become obvious soon enough. Why waste time debating it now? O3000 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's become obvious enough.  Volunteer Marek   15:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes most notable thing about a person with many notable and questionable characteristics. Artw (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sorry, but that is really a ridiculous claim. That may be the most notable thing to you, but Judge Moore has been around for decades doing his various other things. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not a judge. Also the allegations, which are strong and plausible, stretch back decades. Even if he succedes in his senatorial bid this will be the mostnotable thing about him. Artw (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Artw I still say yes, but I'm with Drmies, this is not the most notable thing about Roy Moore. —Anomalocaris 06:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bombshell Report on Roy Moore Could Reshape Washington's Political Landscape Artw (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No as per above, though there's every possibility I'll change my mind by Monday. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably change my mind by then also. I only come to these f breaking news stories ‘cause I have a function key on my keyboard that types Patience and I want to make use of it. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And now it's five "yes", five "no", and two "undecided". Still no consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - I think it's important enough to go in the lede. I can understand why some are hesitant. One important thing - this will most likely have to be revisited soon because the story is likely to grow. For example, . Also, iiuc, even Trump now said that if the allegations are true, Moore should drop out.  Volunteer Marek   14:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * *Yes. This is now one (if not the) of the most notable things about Moore. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes Not living in the US, this is the first time Moore is on the news in Europe; arguably more notable (abroad, and Wikipedia is not centred on any one country) than anything else Moore has done. Belongs in the lede (which should be trimmed). Jeppiz (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, but include only if this report significantly alters the race: Allegations like these are very serious and damaging, regardless of whether they're true or not. This incident is similar to the Access Hollywood incident with Donald Trump last October, and look now -- this incident isn't in Trump's article's intro, and rightly so, since Trump was able to shrug the story off. If Moore is able to do the same, so that one year from now nobody will remember the story or have any reason to do so, we should keep the story away from the intro. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, my definition of "significantly alters the race" is if Moore drops out or if he loses a significant amount of his support directly because of these allegations. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The difference is that there is just so much notable stuff to a President that it bumps other notable stuff out. There's really nothing in Moore's life that has earned him as much attention as this. Most observers say it's likely to affect the Senate race (with several prominent Republicans and conservatives calling for his withdrawal) and could even be grounds for the Senate booting him out even if he's elected. So, it has clear and lasting implications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Not the 10 commandments case? Not the same-sex marriage case? Not his primary win against Luther Strange despite Trump's endorsement? All three of those events (and the first two got him removed from the Court) are clearly more notable than *allegations* that were just released yesterday.
 * The observers who say it will affect the Senate race are predicting this -- they said the exact same thing after the Access Hollywood tapes with Trump. "Several prominent Republicans and conservatives" also called for Trump to withdraw after the Access Hollywood tapes -- they're reacting to the moment, and most of those calling for this don't even support or like Moore. How can you say it will have "clear and lasting implications"? All this goes against WP:CRYSTAL. The Access Hollywood tape appeared extremely damaging (with "lasting implications") to Trump in October, but look now. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seriously, not the 10 commandments case. Not the same-sex marriage case. Not his primary win. None of these more notable than these allegations. Just look at the coverage of all three in the national press.
 * And Access Hollywood tape does still have it's won article. As it should. Also, it actually doesn't matter if this alters the outcome of the race or not. That is not the relevant criteria. The relevant criteria is simply how much attention this is getting in the sources. And it's a ton.  Volunteer Marek   05:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Early indications are that it has cause a poll shift, though nothing definitive: . Even giving a Moore win I do not see this going away - he will then be the senator with abuse allegations hanging over him rather than the nominee. Artw (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes It is very obviously importantEccekevin (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it clearly needs to be mentioned prominently in the lead. Worldwide coverage, this is his primary claim to fame now, certainly from a global perspective. As mentioned, this is major news in Europe (and probably elsewhere around the globe), and it's the only thing he is known for internationally. --Tataral (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, We're still in the very early stages about unproven allegations. It's already come out that one of his accusers has been active in the Democratic party.  Should be in body of article, though.Amberwaves (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And the false smears begin. Holy crap you people! You really got no shame.  Volunteer Marek   04:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "False smears"? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. "Hired by the Clinton campaign" to be an sign language interpeter at a rally and "active in the Democratic party" are not the same thing. And for fuck's sake, so fucking what if she had been "active in Democratic party"??? I don't care if she was Hillary Clinton's secret alien lover from Andromeda. There are four other women who have made the same accusations independently, their stories have been corroborated by outsiders, another one of the women - the 14 yo one - is actually a Trump supporter, the dude has admitted to "dating teenage girls" when he was in his 30's... you have to be a real shit to pull out this one minor fact out of the whole story - that she was an sign interpreter at some Democratic events - and choose to emphasize that rather than all the other parts of the story. It *is* smearing the victim and it's despicable. Smears can be based on true, but irrelevant facts. And they're effective, especially if targeted at immoral fucking morons who are just begging to latch onto any lame pathetic excuse to disbelieve a women when she says she was assaulted.  Volunteer Marek   05:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, that account Amberwaves, is indef banned user CFredkin. And this kind of malicious crap is exactly why he was indef banned. So do me a favor and stop enabling this kind of behavior.  Volunteer Marek   05:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You clearly did not actually read the article -- in the second paragraph, the article states that she also worked with Joe Biden, Patrick Murphy, and Bill Nelson. And I'm only showing that your claim of "false smears" itself is false. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the article. She worked as a sign language interpreter at a couple other events that had Democratic candidates. So. Fucking. What??? Seriously, if you don't understand this then I doubt I can explain it to you. But let me try. To respond to somebody who says "I was sexually assaulted as a teenager" with "But you worked for a Democrat!" (therefore implying the person is lying) is extremely fucked up. It's scummy. It's a smear, 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts about that. Who the fuck thinks that way? And that's putting aside that there are several other women who have made the same allegation independently, that their stories have been corroborated, that Moore admitted to parts of the story. Whoever wrote that al.com piece (and I'm pretty sure it's user generated content) should be ashamed of themselves. Not surprised that Fox News picked it up and tried to make something out of it though (just another example why they can no longer be considered a reliable source) And not really surprised that a sock of an indef banned user is trying to push this here on Wikipedia. Haven't made my mind up yet if I'm surprised or not at the fact YOU are sitting here and trying to push the same ugly narrative (your sophistry about "showing the claim of 'false smears' is false" is just that. Sophistry and stomach turning weaselry. Just stop it)
 * I'd also appreciate it if you refrained from telling me what I have or "clearly" have done, since you've really got no way to tell.  Volunteer Marek   15:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're turning this into a moralistic debate over whether it's OK to report on something like this (not my intention at all, as seen with my original two-word comment) -- I have no interest in that, nor in your moralizing (yet profanity-laden) rants. Reply if you want -- I'm done. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait! Wait... wait... wait... lemme check... yep... yep... looks like it. Checks out. You gonna make me file a formal SPI or can we just strike your comments since you're an indef banned user who's sock puppeting?  Volunteer Marek   05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, why is there a reference to disputed payments to the Foundation for Moral Law in the lead? That doesn't seem prominent enough to be included there.Amberwaves (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. desmay (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is completely irrelevant here.  Volunteer Marek   15:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly, because this issue became central in his political career and in a much wider political context and other events in the country . Basically, this is one of the most notable recent controversies, something he is now known for. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - include in the lead as it has very obviously become his primary claim to fame. --RevivesDarks (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous
Here are the page view statistics:. The number of views went up by a factor of ... 50! From approx. 2000 views on 11/7 to... 100,000 vies on 11/9. There's no extra zeros there. Ninety eight thousand more views. Now, WHY do you think people are coming here to read this page? That's right, it's the sexual abuse allegations.

Now, I know how Wikipedia works. But it took me like four minutes (ok a bit of an exaggeration) to actually find this pertinent info in the article. It's buried way the hell down in the article. Relative to how big this is it's pretty short. And it's tucked in between other stuff to make sure that it's hard to notice.

This is pretty obviously wrong. This is the biggest story of this election and probably of Moore's life. And it's sprawling with Trump and a whole bunch of other people commenting on it. But for POV reasons we are trying to hush it up as much as we can.

Sorry, this needs to be in the lede, and not just in the lede but in the first couple paragraphs.  Volunteer Marek  04:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't let this one go. We are the watchers on the wall.  We are the last defense between the outsourced defenses / editorial policies of tech conglomerates, and the ravages of fake news.  If people want to know "what is the latest news about Roy Moore", they have a hundred other sites to visit.  If people want to know "what is a biography of Roy Moore that reflects his whole life and not just the past 24 hours" they really only have one.  This one.  The fact that companies pour traffic on to this site doesn't mean we should pander to it; if anything it means we should pander away from it.
 * Let the profit-seeking drive for the marginal click be relegated to other sites, on this site we have the integrity of our principles. Principles which include WP:NOTNEWS, which suggests that we shouldn't emphasize the story which broke less than 48 hours earlier.  Principles which include WP:NPOV, which suggests that even if a myriad forces (apparently including the man himself) conspire to destroy this man, we stand neutral.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We also follow sources and WP:WEIGHT. Or rather here we don't, and our overabundance of caution in following our own policies is beginning to make us look ridiculous and agenda driven. Artw (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles like and various un-endorsements from Senators are definitely pushing this news story forward.  But I see no reason to rush it, and many reasons not to rush it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would suggest skipping all the stages of denial and saving everyone a bunch of bother. Artw (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to rush. WP:RECENT applies, and let's remember that this is an ongoing controversy -- even if false, these are very damaging accusations, and nothing is settled yet as to whether the allegations are true or not. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh nonsense. It's a huge story and relative to its prominence and coverage we are going out of our way NOT to talk about it. It's straight up POV.  Volunteer Marek   05:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein. That story broke on October 5th. Within minutes it was in the article (not saying that it shouldn't have been) (oh look, he also threatened to sue his accusers ) A few hours later it had its own section  (that's still the same day, Wikipedia just time stamps everything weird). About a day later it was in the lede, which nobody actually questioned. On October 10th/11th, editors agree to have a separate article. By October 12 it had its own article. Weinstein really only fessed up to it (partially) on October 14th.

So why are we bending over backwards NOT to include this info here? Because of politically motivated users showing up to brigade and tag team to keep it that way. Where were you 1990sguy talking about "no need to rush" and bringing up WP:RECENT? That's right, it wasn't an issue there. But here it is? Like I said, this is ridiculous.  Volunteer Marek  05:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you invoked by username, I guess I'll respond. I have never edited Weinstein's article or talk page, and I have very little interest in doing so, or in him in general (like most Hollywood people), so you're ridiculously misrepresenting this by implying I was somehow at the center of a push to put sexual assault allegations in his article. WP:RECENT would also apply to Weinstein's article.


 * But what's the problem? The allegations about Moore also went in the article early on, and there was a very early consensus to do so. What I have an issue with is putting the allegations in the intro, but if these allegations do cause a big change in the election (which very well might happen), I think it would definitely be appropriate. I consider you implying that I'm "politically motivated" a WP:PERSONAL attack. I follow NPOV when editing and try not to let my personal views (which are not a secret) get in the way of my editing here. If I were "politically motivated" here, I would be advocating for very different changes. :) --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Whether it affects "a change in the election" is NOT our standard for notability, inclusion in the article, or inclusion in the lede. The standard of inclusion is the extent to which the event has been covered in reliable sources. And that has been "A TON". Please stop making up arbitrary, non-policy based, rules or threshold to try and sneak in your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT POV into the article.  Volunteer Marek   15:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this clearly needs to be mentioned prominently in the lead ASAP; it's his primary claim to fame. Any attempt to hide it/bury it is just disruption. --Tataral (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Many experienced editors agree with me, so go talk to them. I'm finished dealing with the moralizing and WP:PERSONAL attacks on this talk page. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Tataral, please, the news of allegations of Moore dating, and more than dating, teenage girls when he was in his 30s, is not his "primary claim to fame" in the long run, even if it is getting a lot of attention right now. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty unlikely, but if it turns out to be the case I guess we can update the article. Artw (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To follow your argument for a minute, Anomalocaris, Moore's Senate run is likely to be one of his primary claims to fame 'in the long run', and that is intimately tied with the allegations for obvious reasons. Let's not play dumb. --RevivesDarks (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, is the thinking that Moore being an accused child molester is going to go away if wins the election? Not to be all WP:CRYSTAL but not only does it just then go from "accused child molester candidate" to "accused child molester senator" but there'll likely to be an explosion of interest the hows and whys that Alabama/conservatives/evangelical (or combination) have fallen for this guy despite the accusations and his creepy behaviour. We'll probably need whole new spin off articles for the societal implications. Artw (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're replying to me or him, but for the record I essentially agree with you. I just wanted to show why Anomalocaris' argument is not really as ironclad as he thought it was. --RevivesDarks (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Specific wording
There's clearly a good chance something on this matter will be added to the lead section of the article in the next few days. What should that sentence/paragraph be? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I added something, feel free to improve. Possibly the Washington Post ref shoudl move up to the lede to match, though usually citations in the body are sufficient for an article. Artw (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Moore has been accused of inappropriate sexual contact with teenagers whilst in his 30s, including the molestation of a 14 year old girl when he was 32. - ABSOLUTELY NOT! Also, I was hoping additions to the lead would be discussed here before adding it to the article. 21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inaccurate about this summary. Probably underplays the extent to which his behaviour towards teenagers has been cinfirmed. Artw (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also I'd appreciate you not citing BLP inappropriately in edit summaries. Artw (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that if anything the sentence underplays the well-covered nature and subsequent resonance of the allegations. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with that; the only reasonable complaint about that sentence would be that it underplayed the controversy, that it was too brief etc. In fact this controversy and its implications should be discussed in more detail and should additionally be mentioned (briefly) in the first paragraph; requiring readers to read no less than six paragraphs about less important stuff before even mentioning what he is actually known for is not the way to do it. (Of course, the situation now is that the lead section includes tons of less important, even trivial material, while omitting entirely the only thing the guy is known for on the global stage). --Tataral (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has now been added by User:Volunteer Marek. I do feel the lead could use a trim - I'm not sure what to do with the Foundation for Moral Law stuff, it's probably important but it feels awkwardly tacked on now. The beauty of 'anyone can edit' is that these things tend to get bloated and awkward. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just noticed. I think the volunteer's solution is also a good one, so I was about to strike a part of my comment above. --Tataral (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a new lede at my sandbox. Trying to collaborate with people who don't understand why "molestation of a 14 year old girl" is a BLP concern is beyond futile. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah but at the very least the age of the youngest woman needs to be mentioned since that is the biggest deal in that whole story.  Volunteer Marek   02:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's been done to death in RS, eliding it for the sake of it is silly at best and POV at worst. --RevivesDarks (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"if true"..."would be a felony"... Okay, however...
What about a statute of limitations? We're almost 40 years after the fact. 69.34.54.184 (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since she was under 16 at the time, there'd be no statute of limitations.  Volunteer Marek   07:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek: Statutory rape laws in the United States redirects to Ages of consent in the United States, which doesn't seem to say anything about statutes of limitations, so,
 * Since she was under 16 at the time, there'd be no statute of limitations.
 * —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have seen the "no statute of limitations" claim in the media, though I don't remember where and would like a source that claims legal expertise to cite for that (rather than just an in-passing claim in a news story). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he managed to just miss the effective change in the statute of limitations in Alabama. But, sources differ. Which is to say we shouldn't mention it until sources agree. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you word that as if it's been proven that he actually did what he's being accused of? "...he managed to just miss the effective change..." 69.34.49.95 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Current unproven allegations in the second paragraph of the lede?
That reeks of bias to me. 69.34.49.95 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this sentence belong in the article?
In 2015, when asked if he believed that homosexuality should be punished by death, Moore answered, "I'm not here to outline any punishments for sodomy."

The above sentence was challenged and removed as a breach of UNDUE POV and possibly SYNTH. here. It was subsequently reinserted, possibly in breach of 1RR and definitely without talk page consensus here. [This has been self reverted.] Does this belong in the article?
 * No A question was asked and not answered. Inserting this is a clear attempt to imply something that was not stated in violation of UNDUE and POV. In this case the press/media coverage does not overrule our guidelines against making insinuations of an extremely controversial nature that are not backed by clear evidence. IMO this is a serious BLP vio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes It is clearly notable that he refuses to answer a question regarding putting one tenth of the population to death. Artw (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have no idea how anyone could conceive of this as implicating BLP (please quote the specific language from the policy that you believe applies), nor how this one-line entry is "undue." This was an public interview of a public figure, the source is good, and the statements are relevant. Neutralitytalk 20:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure it improves the article, but none of BLP, NPOV, or UNDUE require its removal. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. There’s never a dull day at Wikipedia, is there?  The proposal snips out part of the question and part of the answer, as reported by CNN.  The question included that some people say death should be the penalty, and part of Moore’s answer was “I can't help what some people say, what some people do."  If you look at the YouTube, Moore even implied that he supported the law as it stood prior to 2003, which did not include a death penalty.  So we’ve snipped all this down to the point where Moore sounds as bad as possible.  My view is that simply describing Moore is sufficient, rather than painting horns on his head.  Painting horns is fun, and often effective, but we ought to let the BLP subject stand or fall on what he is rather than exaggerating.  Moore says homosexual activity should be illegal.  End of story.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's still a non-answer to a very important question. Artw (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So say he gave a non-answer instead of insinuating he supports the death penalty.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In 2015, when asked if he believed that homosexuality should be punished by death, Moore answered, "I'm not here to outline any punishments for sodomy." Artw (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Moore has not explicitly said what he thinks the penalty for homosexual activity should be. Correct?  If it’s correct, then I support including that.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He has said that when asked if homosexuality should carry the death penalty. Any answer other than a straight "no" is significant here. Artw (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No - The sentence clearly is meant to suggest something that he didn’t say. Besides, it’s thoroughly dishonest. The following words were removed from the beginning of his reply: “Well I don't, you know,” His actual statements are outrageous enough without exaggerating them. This is a BLP vio. O3000 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is his statement "Exaggerated"? The text literally recounts the question and gives Moore's answer - no interpretation required. Neutralitytalk 22:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Concur with Anythingyouwant's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes - The overall context matters a great deal. It is important to reflect his direct response (avoidance) to a very relevant question because of his association with Kevin Swanson and his history of attacks on LGBT rights, including blatantly violating the law on several occassions.- MrX 22:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. This is clearly intended to imply he supports capital punishment for homosexuals. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since that's basically the thrust of the source I don't see how it can be SYNTH. Artw (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's SYNTH because it is clearly intended to imply something not expressly stated, namely that he supports capital punishment for homosexuals. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it's not. It's a faithful reflection of the source. If your concern is that only a portion of his response is quoted, then that can be addressed by including his entire response. Notably, when asked if homos should be punished by death, he didn't say no.- MrX 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. I checked the source. There is no way to consider this a WP:SYN. This is an important and telling statement by Roy Moore. Actually, punishing homosexuality by death would be illegal in the state of Alabama, to say the least. Not answering "no" to such question tells a lot about the person, and not only about his personal views, but also about his fitness for the office. But he said a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And you want us to also exclude his disavowal: “I can't help what some people say, what some people do”?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's so much a disavowal as it is a dog-whistle.- MrX 23:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure it’s a disavowal. If you don’t think it’s enough of one then we can quote Moore’s spokesman: “Appearing in any interview is never an endorsement of the interviewer.  Responding to CNN is a great example.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I am looking at that your later source, and what does it tell in the end?
 * Hence the source makes an explicit connection between his statement and his actual actions, actions that led to his suspension. This is notable comment to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence the source makes an explicit connection between his statement and his actual actions, actions that led to his suspension. This is notable comment to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes it belongs in the article. It's a direct quote, thus not a BLP-vio. It shows that he calls homosexuality "sodomy", and that he implicitly believes in sodomy law / punishments for sodomy, not excluding death. If that isn't relevant, I don't know what is. It was a deliberate non-answer answer indicating that he would not deny it. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is, in the full quote he actually did say no. Now, you could also argue that in the way he said it he didn’t mean no. But, when you start arguing that no doesn’t mean no in anything related to sex, you’re on an oil-slicked slope. O3000 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, he did not simply said "no". He said in essence: "I am not responsible for something other people tell, and this is none of my business", instead of saying something like "this is an outrageous and illegal idea that I do not share". But in fact this is absolutely his business to uphold the law and protect all people, including homosexuals if he occupies the office. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. I originally added it. WP:SYNTH accusations are rubbish: the specific question asked of him in the RS is recounted and his answer in quote-form given. If users want to add longer quotes, that's fine. If Moore or his campaign has updated his position on the issue, then that update should be added as a supplement to the initial non-committal stance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes It's not SYNTH, it's a direct quote that is a very clear evasion of the question that speaks to his political views and deserves to be included. --RevivesDarks (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Relevant as a reflection of his views. Covered in reliable sources. LK (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No I found where Moore says "I’ve been accused of saying I want to kill homosexuals because the Bible says. And I don’t." There's no reason to over-emphasize a vague statement on a talk radio show. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is classic spin by the subject to disprove something no one accused him of. The quotation above does not accuse him of desire to kill homosexuals. It tells (his own words) ""I'm not here to outline ..." ("I am not"). However, this false denial makes quotation even more important/notable. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No: Per Anythingyouwant, Objective3000, and Power~enwiki. Not only does the current sentence misrepresent what Moore actually said and meant, but he has stated in other instances (as shown above) that he opposes the death penalty for homosexuals. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No: Per Anythingyouwant, Wikipedia should not insinuate. Cjhard (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Great job
The allegations about sexual misconduct is excellent. Its informative, neutral and well written. Great job you wiki editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boriz The Spider (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not well-written. "Innapropriate" is a misspelling. It goes from the allegations involving the person who was 14, to the others who were 16 to 18, then jumps back to the matter of the 14-year-old. 69.34.49.95 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would agree the simple, concise earlier phrasing was better. Artw (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please link to the past version you mean. Thanks. 69.34.49.95 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Artw (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But now I'm wondering if you're referring to the paragraph in the lede or to the main section about the matter. Sorry. If the lede, then yes, brevity would be better. I'd say the extraneous details (like Moore's statement about mothers' permissions) should be left to the main section about it. Also, I think the matter shouldn't be the 2nd paragraph of the lede, at least not at this point. I don't think mere accusations warrant featuring the material so prominently even in the face of the current news coverage. 69.34.49.95 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Innapropriate contact with teenagers and alleged child molestation"
That should be "Inappropriate." Of course, it's questionable if "inappropriate" is neutral anyway. 69.34.49.95 (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's an appropriate way for a man in his 30s to date schoolchildren? Artw (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that for Wikipedia editors to decide? 69.34.49.95 (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems the most concise way to describe the reaction of the sources, yes. Artw (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate is possibly non-neutral, but supported by almost all the sources. "Molestation" is not.  I challenge the use of it in the heading, both as a BLP concern and as per Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL by omission and therefore POV. Artw (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * suggests that "sexual abuse" is what is being alleged. Regardless, the phrasing in the headline should be supported by sources and should try to avoid inflammatory language. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Roy Moore Sex Abuse Scandal, perhaps? Artw (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Accusations" instead of "Scandal" would be far more neutral, imho. They are, after all, only accusations thus far. If they're somehow proven (doubtful) or admitted by Moore, then I can see "Scandal" as appropriate. 69.34.49.95 (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with "Accusations of sexual abuse", though I think the current title of "Inappropriate contact with teenagers" is probably better. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Inappropriate" behavior is a social construct, so it's not neutral. What's considered inappropriate in the U.S. could be perfectly acceptable outside the U.S., and vice versa. Even within the U.S., it can differ from culture to culture. This is why the words "socially acceptable" appear in the "Age disparity in sexual relationships" article instead of "appropriate". FallingGravity 08:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, did Wikipedia just use cultural relativity to endorse pedophilia as just another type of relationship? This seems highly problematic. Artw (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So you think Wikipedia should take a moral stand against Moore's alleged actions? That seems about as problematic as "endorsing" pedophilia (which the article doesn't do anyway). FallingGravity 16:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would take a stand as normalizing predatory grooming of schoolchildren as just being a unqualified "relationship" in all cases, yes. This does not seem like it would be an unusual position. Artw (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's good for you that you want to take a stand against this kind of behavior, but Wikipedia is not your means of taking that stand. FallingGravity 18:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you applying this standard only to Roy Moore then you would be the one in violation of WP:ADVOCATE, if you are applying it in general to all child abuse cases then I believe we have a big problem that goes way beyond this article. Artw (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOV is all of the time. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want policy changes, start a discussion at WP:VPP. Looking at the article's history, I think the previous wording was just fine and complied with Wikipedia policy. Although we have a lot of evidence describing Moore's behavior, he hasn't been convicted of a sexual abuse, so WP:ALLEGED could apply here. The best way to resolve this for this article is probably a Request for Comment to pick the best wording ("alleged", "inappropriate", "scandal", "relationship", etc.) FallingGravity 18:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid the word pedophilia even on the talk page since, revolting as the accusations are, they don’t fit the definition. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not agree with you in general, but in specifics this relates specificity to FailingGravities edits and the handling of sexual abuse cases. Artw (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Inappropriate" may be a social construct, and elsewhere the alleged behavior may be considered fine--but that's not what we are dealing with. The sources all state that most everyone finds this behavior problematic, to put it mildly. As for "scandal"--well, it's a scandal already, as my trusty conservative newspaper reported on the front page this morning. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the sources all state that the alleged behavior is considered inappropriate, then we can put it inside the section. I don't see a problem with using the word scandal to describe the situation. FallingGravity 16:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead ordering
The lead sounds like a hit piece. Not much that can be done about that as it’s all well sourced and, well, he is who he is. I do think a bit or reordering could help. For example, the first sentence states: best known for being twice elected to and twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court. The article then launches into the sex part. Shouldn’t we start with what we just said he’s best known for? I realize that the hits on this page have skyrocketed due to current events. But, I don’t think WP should be influenced by such. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe 2nd paragraph could be moved to the end of the lead, simply to present everything in chronological order. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Drmies, I think this is a significant improvement. Ethanbas (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

More source
A local newspaper found (dozens?) of residents also backing up the allegations. This seems pretty important to add.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html

TJKENFNAJKFNAJKENFKAEF (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * TJKENFNAJKFNAJKENFKAEF (if that’s your real name), thank you for the link. This is spreading and may later be included in some manner. But, we need to be careful about salacious hearsay. O3000 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that the editorial board of AL.com, which old people like me used to call The Birmingham News, called for Moore to drop out of the race. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal life
Many biographies include a section about the subject's personal and family life. This article has no such section but includes only the single sentence "During this period, he married his wife Kayla, switched his affiliation to the GOP, and added to his office a wooden Ten Commandments plaque." I think that the article would benefit from more detail in this area. Moore's wife is frequently at his side at public appearances, and she speaks out in public on his behalf. How old was Moore and how old was his wife when they were married? I know that she is much younger, but dates and ages would be useful.

Why did he leave the Democratic Party and become a Republican? I am reasonably sure that he would have issued a statement when he switched, which would illuminate his thinking at that time. How about his children? Are any of them accomplished? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. It shouldn't be too hard to find sources to address those gaps.- MrX 12:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pergaps some accounts of his time in Australia working as a ranch hand? We seem to be lacking in detail for that. Artw (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently before that he was a kickboxer? Artw (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)