Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017 - Removal of using "far-right" to compartmentalize what is claimed to be his politics
The following paragraph should be corrected to be relevant only to the facts. "Far-right" references should be removed as this is not fact. It is part of a larger and false compartmentalization of what is said to be the political "right" (which also applies differently in different countries and regions other than the USA) and is meant (in the USA) to be associated/synonymous with the Republican agenda, certain to suit the narrative of those opposed to the Republican agenda. Even though the terms "left" and "right" are used by many, what is associated to whom with respect to these terms (and the "spectrum") has always been highly debated. As such, this is yet another reference in many articles that should be corrected.


 * Moore is an advocate of far-right politics.[7][8][9] He earned significant national attention and controversy over his strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim, and far-right views, his belief that Christianity should order public policy,[10][11] as well as his past ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups.[12][13][14][15][16]

The paragraph can simply be stated in the following manner:


 * He earned significant national attention and controversy over his anti-homosexual and anti-Muslim views, his belief that Christianity should order public policy,[10][11] as well as his past alleged ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups.[12][13][14][15][16] 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * -- please make an edit request only once there is consensus for your proposed edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And how was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus? I don't think so. The references in that first sentence do not apply, as there is never a definition of "far-right" that is in anyway non-contradictory and therefore does not need to be used here. The paragraph professes what it professes just fine without trying to lazily associate "right" or "far-right" (as what happens with usage of "left" and "right"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.122 (talk • contribs) 20:19, November 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Far-right is in the references. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the references should be removed per WP:NPOV. Far-right is an opinion, not a fact, and has no place in Wikipedia articles any more than far-left does. Txantimedia (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Far-right is a fact, according to our sources. The Atlantic calls it hard right, but the meaning is still the same. - MrX 01:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Far-right is an opinion of those sources. It would be the same as reporting a story where a man killed a bunch of people and reporting that he was crazy. Without the qualified diagnosis of a psychiatrist, the appellation is an opinion. I don't think it's correct to claim that simply because an RS expresses an opinion, it therefore became a fact. Txantimedia (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * RS are not opining that he is far-right. They're describing him as far-right. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 06:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment is correct. And as far as we know, Moore is proud to be characterized by mainstream authorities -- and Wikipedia -- as "far-right". (Just don't say "neoconservative"; he's not a neo-conservative.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No, your comment is a logical fallacy and is circular. "They're describing him as far-right" does not define what the "far-right" actually is, as such it's a compartment used for opinions from some people's superego's who perceive what they want to perceive the "right"/"far right" to be, same can be said with the "left", but we are talking about this case here. What is attributed to being "right" and "left" are opinions, and have become quite inaccurate and contradictory over the decades.

As Txantimedia had stated in responses above, the references are OPINIONS and attempts by those writers/editors, in my opinion, to trivialize, marginalize and then compartmentalize into a bucket of "far-right". It is NOT a fact by any standards. The New York Times had an op-ed on Charles Manson (who had died in jail recently) and how he apparently began the "alt-right" (whatever the heck that is, same questions as what is the "right"/"left"/"far-whatever", no one knows, history then becomes revised to suit political agendas and all is obfuscated for the next generation to further such ignorance of the subject). Totally ridiculous to cite that op-ed, but from those who defend the references citing "far-right" this would be ok. The person who wrote the op-ed clearly has no ground in history, for that matter. Would also it be ok to cite the recent Newsweek article comparing Charles Manson and President Trump (their manner of speaking to their "followers")? This can be interpreted to be totally bigoted, as it is clearly leaving out other obvious comparisons, such as President Obama and his speaking to his "followers". A lazy, biased article, yet someone could cite it and say it's a fact "according to our sources".

The overall point here is that the edit of that paragraph in question serves the same information and purpose, without trying to compartmentalize Roy Moore's views into something that is perceived with such inaccuracy and sometimes intent to slander/libel groups of people perceived to be in those compartments. The world isn't like that. History should not be revised, and neither should the history of political parties in the USA. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

-- I have been threatened to be blocked by Nomoskedasticity who wrote: "Keep this up and you'll end up blocked." , why? It is because Answer=yes was toggled to 'no'? Now, this might be my own misunderstanding of what "answered=" actually refers to (is it simply because ONE person replied, in this case Nomoskedasticity, I don't see why that means it's answered, but if that's the technicality used...)

Anyway, The original reason given for the toggle back to 'yes' was "This isn't going to be implemented without consensus". I responded by replying, "And how was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus?"

My response stands on it's own. "Far-right" is not a factual term and does NOT have a consensus. It seems quite prudent and fair to simply make the proposed edit, removing those particular terms and leaving the rest for others to view and review. Using "far-right" only serves to obfuscate ideologies and perpetuate the ignorance that exists around using that term. Did those sources define or point to a source of what "far-right" is? No. And I highly doubt they would be able to discern what is "right" and "left" in the first place. Just look at the Wiki for these topics and maybe you'll see. That is, if you can discern what is and isn't. Otherwise, you do not have any expertise in this matter and should leave it to others to form a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.122 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you don’t appear to be listening to the responses. He is described as far-right by reliable sources. Your comparison to using an op-ed is not on point as op-ed’s are opinions. What we believe are also opinions. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Claiming someone is "far-right", even in a news article is editorializing. The meaning of far-right is subject to the biases of the reader. For example, the German Nazi party is often labeled "far-right" in articles. Yet the Nazi party was a socialist party. If anything, they should be labeled "far-left", but the point is, calling anyone far this or far that is labeling and editorializing and has no place in an article that is supposed to be neutral. This slavish devotion to using labels assigned by RS is nothing more than an excuse to conceal bias. The bias of news sources is often quite obvious, and no news source is free of bias. Nor are they free of error. C.f. NBC's report on the Pinto's expoding gas tank for a blatant example. IMNSHO, ALL labels, far-right, far-left, etc., should be removed from articles, and the subjects of the article should be labeled, if we must insist on labeling people, by their party membership, but even that is so imprecise as to be meaningless.
 * I have no problem with prose that states, Subject has taken positions that are often called far-right. But stating that Subject is far-right (or far left) is labeling and indicates a POV rather than NPOV. Txantimedia (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter if the toggle is switched to yes or no -- no-one is going to implement the edit request when it's plain that there is no consensus for the requested edit. The policy on edit requests is clear in this regard: if a requested edit is disputed, the template is to be used when the dispute has been resolved and consensus has been reached.  You may now return to your regularly scheduled bickering.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry O3000, but you don't appear to be listening to my response. These RS are opining within their articles. These sources DO NOT define what "far-right" is, they DO NOT refer to another source as to what it is. It should be clear that "far-right" (and the whole spectrum of "left" to "right") is a compartmentalization of what people perceive to be an ideology, that they would obviously then try to relate to the "right" (yet, another compartmentalization of things perceived to be related to whatever they want it to be).

To both O3000 and Nomoskedasticity, I asked a simple question: How was "far-right" added in the first place? Consensus? You did not answer that, NO ONE did and here we are arguing in circular fashion because of it. How is it that there is so much editing by so many others (aside from grammar or structure-based) going on in this article that is semi-protected, where were those consensuses made? Are we talking about consensus that can be within talk pages?

So, how did "far-right" get there in the first place? As my proposal shows, it's totally unnecessary and as I've mentioned here, the term has no grounds and really needs to be removed until it's defined WITH A CONSENSUS.

The first RS is from the "Journal Gazette" and the ONLY instance of using the term "far right" is in the headline, probably to editorialize and get attention (further enabling the ignorance of "right" and "left" comprises of). That's it. That's all folks. So, obviously we can take that amazing RS out as a reference.

The second RS is from "The Atlantic", and they use a term that they called "hard-right". Gee, what is this? It's not "far-right", is there something farther?? Not defined. No clarity as to what they are talking about. Why? Because they don't care and don't know and gee, this can be used as a reference to support a compartment of ignorance that supports the super-ego of partisans (one can only assume)...why is it a reference?

The third RELIABLE SOURCE, as it is called here (by now this has become almost laughable, if these instances were not so seriously pervasive across the wiki community) is from the "Boston Globe", and as in the first RS, this also has one instance of the term "far-right" used in the headline. The headline, that's it.

Now, let's think about what we've seen in headlines and how they are used as editorialize and push opinions into articles from news outlets that were certainly more reliable in past decades than they are now.

All three RS references are totally invalid and do not serve any purpose other than to perpetuate this ignorance of "left" and "right", in this case "far-right". Remove them please, as my proposal suggests a fair solution.

Thank you to the editors/moderators that ARE listening to this. Again, this is not about Roy Moore, it is all about trivializing, marginalizing and then compartmentalizing perceptions of ideologies and viewpoints. Media outlets love nothing more than to have things fit their narrative (and their own super-ego's/world-view) in a THIS and THAT/US and THEM/BLACK and WHITE style. As such, objective journalism has bent greatly to suit the desires of the editors and perhaps the readers desires, to some degree). To those who mock/jest about "regularly scheduled bickering", it's quite sad to see that tone among those who (somehow) have editing admin authority. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other sources that describe Moore's views (or him) as far-right: . Roy Moore has marginalized himself with his extreme views on many matters, so I'm comfortable leaving the text as it is.- MrX 18:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt you are comfortable with it, because it satisfies your bias. For example, you call his views "extreme". His views are extreme to you, but to others they are not extreme at all. In fact, they are the correct views to have. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include either of these views. They are supposed to be neutral. Just as RS are supposed to be neutral (but obviously are not.) As Special:Contributions/149.101.1.122 has (rightly) pointed out, those views have no place in a Wikipedia article that is supposed to be neutral, and as I have pointed out, no RS is without bias. Using the excuse that RS said thus and so therefore it's acceptable in an article, is a cop-out. It's a subtle way to introduce bias into an article without being called on it. As Special:Contributions/149.101.1.122 has also pointed out, the bias was introduced into the article without discussion and without consensus. The proper thing to do, then, is to remove it until consensus can be reached. Txantimedia (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Let's scrutinize the "plenty of other sources". For example, your first reference is to a Guardian article that includes the appellation thus: The Alabama candidate was already a controversial figure, holding strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim and far-Right views. Clearly, the and far-Right views is superfluous and introduces bias. Moore's views are described as anti-homosexual and anti-Muslim (although i would dispute even those descriptions as introducing bias), but the "far-Right views" is appended to push the description even farther toward the "extreme" end of the scale. Terms such as these are routinely thrown around in an effort to marginalize the views of individuals whose views are considered outliers by the author of the article or his/her editor. Your second source is CNN, which has been repeatedly exposed for its bias against conservatives, and the wording is in the headline, not the article. Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal. Your third source is WaPo. First of all, it's behind a paywall. Secondly, WaPo has a vested interest in promoting their original story regarding Moore. The wording is The movement toward Moore has contradicted conventional wisdom about his surprise win. As he marched toward victory in last month’s Republican primary, many GOP strategists warned that the far-right Moore would become an embarrassment to the party, much as former then-congressman Todd Akin became an albatross after his 2012 Senate nomination in Missouri.. Your fourth sources is The Daily Beast, an outfit known to have a bias. Their statement is As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate.
 * Note that in all these instances, the sense of the statement is not changed by removing the appellation. For example, As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the Republican candidate. is no different than As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate. with the one exception that far-right introduces a bias into the sentence. Remove far-right from the other three, and the sentences still convey factual information regarding Moore and his views.
 * It is my considered view that all adjectives describing BLP should be removed for introducing bias. Take, for example, the CNN article introduces several biases by the use of adjectives (highlighted in red) {tq|Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal.}} Txantimedia (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia uses reliable sources. We are not going to ignore WP policies to fit your opinions. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not being asked to ignore WP policies. You are being asked to use them with wisdom. If an RS reported the moon was made of green cheese, should that go into an article simply because it's RS? The answer should be obvious. Articles are supposed to use RS AND be neutral. Txantimedia (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A source that would say the moon was made of green cheese wouldn’t be considered an RS by WP. Interesting that you should use the word "appellation" above considering your user name here. With this name, you announce your bias in every edit. In any case, my last comment in this thread. O3000 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Last comment for you is fine with me. Your username is "Objective3000" so, let's not call out other's when clearly you have had little substance to add to this section. You should strive to be objective (as an editor?) in arguing topics such as this. Txantimedia is absolutely correct in that just because something is deemed to be a RS, every word and description is to be the truth or a source for articles. My goodness, imagine the world we'd live in (or do we live here already? Where 85-90% of ALL media outlets are of similar bias and 15-10% are of another similar bias, there is NO neutral RS.).
 * Anyone who is struggling with the question of whether to use sources like the Washington Post, CNN, the Boston Globe, and the Guardian is invited to raise their concerns at RSN. Obviously enough, I think it's a waste of time -- but there are plenty of editors active on this article who have no difficulty with the idea that these are high-quality sources easily satisfying WP:RS.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Txantimedia: Your personal views that I am biased, or that our sources are biased, are not advancing this discussion, so unless you have new arguments based on our content policies, I'm going to stop participating here. You're welcome to ask for the sources to be reviewed at WP:RSN if you like.- MrX 20:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not struggling with whether the sources are RS. They are. But even RS can be biased, particularly in the area of politics. I am arguing that the use of the term far-right, in a Wikipedia article, is not justified merely by the fact that RS used it. As I posted below, the use of the term should fit within its use in Wikipedia. IMO, it does not. Furthermore, the question has been repeatedly asked and never answered - how did the term get inserted without any discussion or consensus? Txantimedia (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You read what I wrote above, and then decided to paste more articles that do not source/ref or even remotely explain what they are describing as "far-right". The subject has "marginalized himself with his extreme views on many matters" is quite the opinion of yours as well. Not fact, not based on anything of substance. And now we must waste time with 4 more "sources" that you googled up. I'm surprised "Media Matters" isn't one of them, as THAT source is somehow used as a RS in Wiki articles; where one should not use the Media Matters source, but rather locate the actual, unedited ref/source that MM was using in their article to discover if it's even usable as a ref/source. Just because a term is in something that is published does not make it valid. I invite you to unpeel this onion and you shall see there are lessons to be learned here. Help advance the discussion, but understand that RS does NOT mean every word and description that an RS uses is with full objectivity. If you don't understand this, the premise to discuss is broken.

There have been studies in the past, but here is a recent Harvard study on many RS (not even a drop in the bucket, but as we can see...), with respect to current politics. The media landscape is quite tilted and therefore people's idea of what is a RS or "neutral" is as well. To assume it's a RS so anything quoted is fine and indisputable because it's simply an RS in the first place. That is absolutely ridiculous and appalling, just beyond the pale of what I'd expect from the ideal wiki editor.

Back to the four new "sources" that supposedly support perpetuating the use of "far-right":

1 - The Telegraph, a UK publication, had one line with the term: "The Alabama candidate was already a controversial figure, holding strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim and far-Right views." As you can see, it's basically the same sentence in the questionable paragraph this section was initially about. Just throw in "far-right" and yeah, gee we all agree. Wrong. What does it mean? We don't know what the UK telegraph means (in Europe this term is associated with Nazism, for one, and is partly the reason why people here in the USA are confused and annoyed by it's usage).

2 - The money.cnn blog post/article simply throws the term into ONE place: "Conservative news heavyweight Matt Drudge took a brutal swipe at former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Wednesday over Bannon's support for far-right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, who is now embroiled in a sexual misconduct scandal." Any editor in any publication can just say "let's throw in "far-right" here". It still doesn't support what the term is referring to and justify it's usage. Steve Bannon is referred to as "alt-right" (another what-in-the-world-are-you-talking-about term) that is apparently not "far-right" or is it? What is that? Who first sourced it? What did they use to do so?

3 - Washington Post reference you cite is from a blog they have called "Power Post" regarding the sentiments of Senator Jeff Flake on Senate-candidate Roy Moore. It states "far-right" once, here: "As he marched toward victory in last month’s Republican primary, many GOP strategists warned that the far-right Moore would become an embarrassment to the party, much as former then-congressman Todd Akin became an albatross after his 2012 Senate nomination in Missouri." So, once again, the writer of the blog post or the editorial staff decided to throw in "far-right" for good measure to qualify (whatever) and associate him and the GOP together in some internal struggle of "far-right" and GOP (where the party is misconstrued and tossed into the that vast compartment of "right"/"right-wing", apparently also containing vague lines of where "alt-right" and "far-right" and "hard-right" and "extreme-right" begin and end). What does the WaPo suggest "far-right" is? Is it the same as the Wall Street Journal? The NYT, LAT? BBC, Telegraph? German publications? No it's not. It has NO clear boundaries and no definition that has any consensus. Is it related to Todd Akin? I don't see anyone calling him "far-right" in his own wiki article, gee maybe we can ref this WaPo article for Todd Akin to be associated with "far-right" (sarcasm folks).

4 - The Daily Beast reference states: "As of Monday afternoon, President Trump has kept his mouth shut about Moore and the assault allegations leveled against the far-right Republican candidate." Again, no idea what that means to them and it might be very different for people who read it because of lack of definition, no consensus.

I keep asking, what was the consensus for originally putting in that term into this article? What is the reason for it to be used (and any of its sibling terms) into this or any wiki article? Define it, get a consensus first, then those terms could be used. Otherwise, remove it please.149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Follow-up: It seems that Txantimedia has been reiterating my points and vice-versa (therefore, sorry for being redundant to the rest of the community reading this), I guess we're forming a consensus. 149.101.1.122 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources don't need to explain terms that are commonly understood. I can't help but notice that these arguments are very, very similar to the tendentious arguments made by and a a bunch of socks and SPAs at talk:Breitbart News. They are no more convincing here than they were there.- MrX 21:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. User:MrX and others - can someone explain to me why an account from the US Department of Justice is making edits to this article? Especially if this account is using multiple account to sock puppet (which may or may not be true - let me look into this)???  Volunteer Marek   03:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't explain it. I guess it's my tax dollars hard at work.- MrX 12:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...this may help:
 * "Since partisan political activity in the workplace is prohibited by the Hatch Act, employees may not use the Internet or any other government equipment to engage in partisan political activities."
 * - MrX 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not commonly understood. That's the problem. That's what I was stressing in my responses, there is NO consensus on what these terms are. I don't know who that user is and whatever the Breitbart News talk article had to say. It's irrelevant as you can clearly read what I have written above. What are you implying? A conspiracy? Would you care to try defining "far-right" and "far-left" is for us all then? Or based on a DEFINITION from a RS? If not, the term has to go and I agree with Txantimedia that all sibling terms would also be removed from articles. This helps clarify and reduces obfuscation and compartmentalization which is used to trivialize narratives in politics (in this case).149.101.1.122 (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's approach this from a different angle. The word far-right is used three times in the article. One use, is IMO, a violation of Wikiepedia policy. In the fourth paragraph of the summary, this sentence appears. Moore is an advocate of far-right politics. The justification for it is cites to three articles; an Indiana news organization, the Atlantic and the Boston Globe. The Indiana article is an AP reprint and uses the term in the headline. The Atlantic article doesn't use the term at all. The Boston Globe article is an AP reprint and uses the term in the headline. Headlines are not news. They are designed to attract readers through sensational claims.


 * The second use is in a subsection with one sentence, labeled Columnist, Moore wrote weekly columns for the far-right website WorldNetDaily from 2006 to 2009.[109][110. This labels WND as far-right. Has anyone ever labeled the New York Times as far-left? I kind of doubt it, but their history could justify its use.


 * The third use is in a subsection labeled Political Positions. I have no problem with that one, because it's directly quoting the cited article. According to Business Insider, Moore has a "history of far-right and conspiracy-aligned positions" on issues such as homosexuality, race, Islam, and terrorism.[166]


 * This raises questions for me.
 * Is it policy for news organizations to be labeled left or right or far-left or far-right?
 * Is it policy for individuals to be labeled this way?
 * If things are going to be labeled far-right, should they not at least partly fit within Wikipedia's own definition of far-right? Category:Far-right politics in the United States


 * I don't see where Moore fits into any of those categories. The closest one is Dominion theology, but I don't think Moore has ever advocated imposing Christianity on US citizens through governmental power.


 * My position would be that the far-right label should be removed from the first and second instance and retained in the third. Txantimedia (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is policy to described news organizations as they are described in reliable sources.
 * It is policy to describe inividuals' political beliefs or stances as they are described in reliable sources.
 * Interpreting what is and what isn't far right isn't up to editors, it's up to reliable sources.
 *  Volunteer Marek  03:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you be kind enough to post links to those policies? I have been unable to find them using your wording. Txantimedia (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I searched for Roy Moore is an advocate of far-right politics on the internet. I can't even find the phrase at clearly biased sites such as Right Wing Watch. Searching for Far-right/far right Roy Moore leads me to tons of headlines, but very few articles that make this claim about Moore. Therefore, I think it would be best if the sentence in the fourth paragraph was changed as follows.
 * Current
 * Proposed
 * The cite would be
 * Unless someone objects, I'm going to make this change. Txantimedia (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you used quotes in those searches as there exist plenty of RS that use far-right to describe Moore. O3000 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please cite the "plenty". Headlines don't count. Cite an article, from RS that uses the term far-right or far right to label Moore. The problem I have is not with the label. It's with the direct statement of the article author. That's why I'm proposing quoting s source instead. Txantimedia (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Refs have been supplied before. But, here's a quick look: BBC:, LATimes, AP via Boston Globe , Washington Post PowerPost , AL . And of course I object for all the reasons stated. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I object.- MrX 21:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind stating your reason(s)? Txantimedia (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the current text represents the broad selection of highly reputable sources. It meets WP:DUEWEIGHT and is an accurate summary of the Moore's political positions and activities detailed throughout the article. The text that you proposed attempts to narrowly attribute the idea that Moore's political views are far-right to a single quote in a minor publication. It would mislead readers in believing it's a minor (or even fringe) viewpoint.- MrX 21:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That can be easily overcome by providing additional or alternate cites. Some (but not all) of the cites  proffered could be used either in addition to or as a replacement for the Vox cite. My concern is that the statement, as currently worded, puts Wikipedia in the position of taking a stance on a political matter, which it should not do. Per WP:NPOV Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. I certainly think that is the case here, and the article would be better served by putting the words "far right" into the mouth of a source, rather than having Wikipedia state it as fact. Txantimedia (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not saying he’s the “best” or “most”. We are just identifying his general political category, as we do with most politicians. O3000 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a biased statement of opinion, no matter how many times you repeat that. This article is replete with examples that any reasonable person of modest intelligence would classify as far-right in the context of 21st century American politics and culture. For example, his wish that homosexuality were illegal is patently far-right. His call for banning Muslims from serving in Congress is far-right. His theocratic bent is far-right. By definition, far-right is the part of the political spectrum that is the most conservative. I think it's safe to say that, among Senators or recent major party Senate candidates, Moore is more conservative than at least 99% of contenders.- MrX 23:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Questioning neutrality/BLP violations

 * The claim by Beverly Young Nelson should not be allowed to stand as if her statements are facts. This woman's claims seem specious and in some instances outright lies. Her allegations need to be balanced with what other reliable sources have discovered about her.

For example, she claimed she was in Moore's car behind the restaurant where she worked. She claims she tried to get out of the car but he locked the doors. There were no automatic door locks controlled by the driver in 1977. When this was pointed out she then said he reached over and locked her door. But of course, she could have still opened her door and left on her own.

The signature in her yearbook looks fake and was obviously taken from her divorce papers. She claims the D.A. after the name stood for "District Attorney," but Moore was an assistant district attorney and Debra Adams was not his clerk, as she was when she stamped Young-Nelson's divorce papers and added her initials to verify the stamp in 1999. Not 1977 as Young-Nelson would have us believe.

She has refused to allow any forensic examination of her yearbook.


 * Her stepson has called her a liar and her boyfriend at the time said she never told him anything about Roy Moore and he never remembered her having any waitress job anywhere. He does say she was dating someone else at the time while she was dating him, and that she eventually married that boyfriend.


 * There are no listings for the campaigns Moore won as a Democrat.


 * When he went to West Point he was recommended and accepted from the recommendation of his Democrat congressman. There was no need to then claim that the Republican who followed the Democrat in office needed to confirm anything. The desire to constantly wrap him as a Republican seems an attempt to erase the fact that he started out as a Democrat.


 * There is far too much reliance on The New Yorker article. There are other sources that are less biased than The New Yorker which reads like a hit piece. Any claims made must come from multiple reliable sources, not just one.


 * The line about admitting to dating younger women seems aimed at confirming he was chasing down young girls as if he were a pedophile/predator, yet no complaints were ever documented or filed, no criminal charges were ever brought.


 * As it reads now, the neutrality of this article is questionable. I appreciate that editors are working with developing information and this fellow has, to say the least, an interesting history with questionable behavior, but these allegations must be handled in as neutral a manner as possible. He's not been charged with any crimes. These claims are 40+ years old with no substantiated evidence or corroboration by eye-witness accounts.


 * There are reliable sources that have questioned why it has taken 40 years for this to surface and have questioned why now and some have suggested that it was fine when he was a Democrat but not now that he's a Republican with a chance to win a U.S. Senate seat.

Not an expert, not an American, but when I read this through it does not present Wikipedia at its best, which seems to me should be the real goal here. Bodding (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This entire edit is WP:OR and a violation of WP:BLP. I suggest removal. O3000 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)}}


 * I base my comments on the BLP and RS policies. My comments about Beverly Young-Nelson come from sources. Bodding (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ones?  Volunteer Marek   02:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you Volunteer Marek for asking and not being reactionary and boxing off my comments. Someone has just pointed out on my talk page that probably the sources I’ve been looking at are likely not acceptable since they are not widely reported in the MSM. But I do recall Wolf Blitzer and Katy Tur trying to get Gloria Allred to answer questions about the yearbook but she instead went on about wanting a senate hearing before releasing anything.


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iGe0xDUkVc


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRDFswFPfc


 * While the sources would not be welcome, nonetheless, my main contention is that the material is being presented as fact when in fact it is not fact it is an allegation, and at the very least the allegations should be coupled with Moore’s denials. Especially as there is a claim about the yearbook that Allred is refusing to allow it to undergo an independent forensic examination by Moore's side, and she cannot say her client saw him sign it. And the law in America puts the burden of proof on the accuser, not the accused. Allred is contending that Moore should prove it’s not his signature. The Wiki article should present both sides, not just one side as fact. Bodding (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They support the fact that she didn't answer - but nothing else. Also they are not being presented as fact (though may support shortening the details here and summarizing the spinoff article more). Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Local polls show Moore leading, and even AL.com may now be trying to cover itself! "AL.com did not report that Moore had been banned from the mall." Paul Gattis, "Roy Moore Campaign Disputes Reports He Was Banned from Mall", AL.com, November 20, 2017. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually local polls are mixed and give Jones a very slight edge (so close it's not significant, it's basically a toss up) . Also al.com is just reporting that Moore campaign denied him being banned from the mall. So what?  Volunteer Marek   21:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your information is dated. Three people have now stated on the record that Moore was not banned from the mall: the former mall manager, the former Operations manager who oversaw security and an employee of the mall who was personal friends with the manager. Txantimedia (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual abuse section needs clarification
It currently reads

A total of nine women have accused Moore of inappropriate sexual or social conduct.[113]

One of those three women was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979

I think the juxtaposition of these two phrases may be confusing to some. I think the second sentence should be clarified with something like this.

A total of nine women have accused Moore of inappropriate sexual or social conduct.[113]

One of those three women accusing Moore of assault was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979 Txantimedia (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have moved the sentence toward the top where it makes more sense. How does that look?- MrX 20:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a few word for clarity (emphasis added): &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. The way it read before was odd. Txantimedia (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, 2 ≠ 'some'
About those surfacing claims in the lead. ("During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore ....") What was it, specifically, that they surfaced?

They surfaced that Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted two. Not "some". Two. The "allegations of sexual misconduct ... includ[e] claims that ... Moore sexually assaulted or molested two teenage girls while he was in his 30s." Jill Colvin, "Trump Chooses Legislative Agenda over GOP Repulsion of Moore", Associated Press, November 26, 2017.

"Learner's definition of some: an unspecified ... number of people or things." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This statement is inaccurate
In the fourth paragraph of the lede, this sentence appears. He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, more than the revenue the organization disclosed on its tax filings. While this is partly a direct quote from the cited Washington Post article, it ignores the fact that in the next paragraph it is reported that the charity couldn't pay the full amount. When the charity couldn’t afford the full amount, Moore in 2012 was given a promissory note for back pay eventually worth $540,000 or an equal stake of the charity’s most valuable asset, a historic building in Montgomery, Ala., mortgage records show. He holds that note even now, a charity official said. So, in fact, he was not paid "more than $1 million (and shouldn't that have been in quotes) but was presented with a promissory note, which he still holds. ISTM, at a minimum, the phrase should be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs)
 * That is the same as being "paid". Which is why the source used the word "paid".  Volunteer Marek   07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it's not the same as being paid. Ask anyone who holds a worthless promissory note. The source doesn't say "paid". It says He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012. then it clarifies that that "collection" includes a sizable promissory note. Are we not at all concerned about accuracy? Again, 'at a minimum the prose should be quoted or it's plagiarism. Txantimedia (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The key word there is "worthless". This promissory note is not that (particularly since it's backed by real physical assets). " the board agreed to give Moore a promissory note worth $393,000 that Moore could cash in on demand, documents show. The board backed up its promise with a second mortgage on the charity’s historic building. In effect, the board was giving him the opportunity to foreclose on its headquarters to collect what he was owed. It also authorized Bentley to increase the amount owed to Moore as needed."
 * And yes it does say "paid":
 * "A Washington Post review of public and internal charity documents found that errors and gaps in the group’s federal tax filings obscured until now the compensation paid to Moore"
 * "The tax filing, covering 2011, said he had been paid $393,000..."'
 * And a few more times through out the article.  Volunteer Marek   08:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "On tax filings for that year, the charity said he was paid $138,000 in “reportable” compensation and $42,000 in “other” pay — for the first time reflecting the $180,000 total he was to receive each year under the agreement."
 * Again, are we not concerned about accuracy? The use of "paid" is in reference to amounts he has actually received. And again, at a minimum shouldn't the direct quote of the Washington Post be in quotes? Or is plagiarism permissible on Wikipedia? Txantimedia (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He did actually receive it. The word pay is not synonymous with cash. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede Paragraph
The arguments about the wording of the sexual abuse / sexual assault allegations are important, but I'm more concerned about the first paragraph: Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American politician and former Alabama state judge known for being twice elected to and twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for failing to uphold the United States Constitution.[1][2] He is also the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law, a non-profit legal organization from which he collected more than $1 million over five years, more than the revenue the organization disclosed on its tax filings.

Why is the "Foundation for Moral Law" being mentioned at all in the lede paragraph? Also, the phrasing of the first sentence feels like a WP:NPOV violation. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure what s NPOV about that? It's entirely factual, well weighted and the thing he was best known for up until the sex abuse allegations came up. Artw (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to explain and defend Special:Diff/812095857 so we can determine if there's a consensus for including that. I stand by my claim that including this information in the first paragraph of his biography is a blatant political attack. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It.... isn't? Maybe it should move down the lede a little, but I don't see you justification for removing it as valid. Artw (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that a "minor" scandal is being overshadowed by a "major" scandal. But the fact that he took money from his charity foundation is still very notable, even if there are allegations over some worse things he did.  Volunteer Marek  00:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clearly worth mentioning in this article (and it also has its own article), I'm not sure it's worth mentioning in the lede. I'm also not sure whether he's being accused of fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, or something else. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget, they are still allegations and for that we are required to strictly adhere to NPOV, V, OR per BLP policy. The lede summarizes his career, and the allegations date back a long time ago. If they are included in the lede, it should go toward the end of the summary and it requires in-text attribution, or it should follow in consistency with our GA/FA bios regarding MOS, and leave the allegations out of the lede but include them in body of the article after his early life and career. That would be strictly adhering to NPOV, Balance, and Weight. Atsme 📞📧 04:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. You're also confused about the subject of discussion.  Volunteer Marek   07:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No to what? That they are allegations, or that we don't have to strictly adhere to policy? Atsme 📞📧 14:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article conforms to your shopping list Atsme, and best efforts are being made by contributing editors to make sure that it remains so. TBH editors coming around in and throwing around policy names like confetti without caring if they are applicable  is becoming both tiresome and insulting.  Artw (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see...well, don't be concerned. It won't be me who stands in the way of anyone's misinterpretation of policy. Keep on editing however you choose to edit SMirC-facepalm.svg. Atsme 📞📧 18:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

In the lede sentence, "removed for failing to uphold the United States Constitution" is unacceptably POV, and not supported by the article text or the sources. We need to change it immediately to something based on the article text. I'm going to change it to "twice removed by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to follow federal court orders". --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Tim Scott
Scott is the first Southern black U.S. Senator elected since Reconstruction: 1881. He's always gone along with the party. That his position is so unusual is the story. Activist (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Republican Party has opposed Moore for quite awhile. Most backed his primary challenger.  Even now, the only "support" for Moore is the opposition to his opponent.  I haven't heard any public figures voicing support for Moore. If Moore wins, there is a good possibility they don't seat him and keep Luther Strange. --DHeyward (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, Donald Trump? Artw (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And the Alabama GOP. Txantimedia (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the advice of other editors, I'm going to undo my restoration of noting the ethnicity of Tim Scott and will request consensus for reverting it on the Talk page. Activist (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting that consensus be determined for restoring the noting of Scott's ethnicity. He's the first black U.S. Senator from the South to be elected in 146 years, and by virtue of that occupies a unique and notable place in U.S. politics. Activist (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we're including this material at all; and see no need to include his ethnicity even if we do include his opinion. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And so we put his ethnicity in his article. We shouldn’t bring it out whenever we mention anything we think is unusual for him, particularly if there isn’t a direct connection. Besides, who cares about his hair color? O3000 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Leave him out. He is merely one more voice in a loud chorus of reaction. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That solves this problem. O3000 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lede - suggested improvement
The second paragraph seems oddly constructed to me. Right in the middle of the discussion of his AL SC foibles is this sentence Moore twice sought the Republican nomination for the governorship of Alabama (in 2006 and 2010), but lost in the primaries.. It seems out of place. Perhaps that section should be reworded. Here's my suggestion (highlighted in red): "Moore was elected to the position of Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2001, but was removed from his position in November 2003 by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments commissioned by him from the Alabama Judicial Building, despite orders to do so by a federal court. After being removed from the Court, Moore twice sought the Republican nomination for the governorship of Alabama (in 2006 and 2010), but lost in the primaries. Moore was again elected Chief Justice in 2013, but was suspended in May 2016, for directing probate judges to continue to enforce the state's ban on same-sex marriage despite the fact that this had been deemed unconstitutional." Thoughts? Txantimedia (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)