Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 7

Heading to a noticeboard soon
User:MrX wants the lead of this BLP to say that Moore “did not deny approaching or dating teenagers”. But Moore did deny it as to underage girls. See Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.” So I consider Mr:X to be engaged in pretty blatant POV-pushing in violation of WP:BLP. I have said multiple times already that the plain facts in this whole matter are problematic for Moore and thus do not need to be exaggerated in order to make them problematic for Moore. If we are going to propagandize, it would be better to do so where it’s actually going to make a person look very bad who would not otherwise look bad at all. Okay?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This page has already been on multiple noticeboards. You may want to try WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe an RFC would be appropriate. Has this particular issue been to WP:BLPN?  Might that noticeboard produce a reasonable result?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don' actually care if it says "did not deny approaching or dating teenagers", but I do care about an editors using original research to replace "not underage" with "above the age of consent". I believe you are trying to alter the neutral presentation of this material by telling readers "don't worry, they we're legal. It's all good." You have inserted this material repeatedly without obtaining consensus. How about seeking consensus before adding it in again?- MrX 23:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Moore did not deny approaching or dating teenagers above the age of consent, and you have not suggested otherwise. You’ve just insisted that we truncate it to tell readers that he didn’t deny dating any teenagers at all, which is false.  You agree it’s false, don’t you?  If so, then perhaps you would be kind enough to remove the falsehood from the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

We can probably work it out here without needing a noticeboard. This is what the lede currently says:"During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them, including one girl who was 14.[5] Moore denied the initial allegations of sexual assault,[6] but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers.[7] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]"

I agree with Anything that "did not deny" is a bad way to put this. It's very negative, implying that there is something wrong or shameful about it, some kind of guilty admission. Also, "denied the initial allegations of sexual assault" is misleading because it sounds like there were later allegations of sexual assault that he did not deny. Let's rewrite this. How about something like "Moore denied the allegations of sexual assault,[6] but acknowledged that he did approach and date girls who were 16 or over.[7] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]" Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay except for one thing: many readers will take it as admission that he pursued young women who had turned 16 but were not yet adults, and thus that he was breaking the law. So I would merely insert “(which is the age of consent)”.  I cited a boatload of sources above at Talk:Roy_Moore%23Putting_sex_allegations_into_summary_style_and_age_of_consent.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I had started to add that but thought I had seen it as being controversial so I dropped it. We could say "he did approach and date girls who were 16 or over - that is, who had reached the age of consent." --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "During his Senate campaign, multiple women accused Moore of pursuing age-inappropriate relationships, one of which would have violated Alabama's age-of-consent laws". I'm not entirely sure which accusations Moore has denied, so I can't suggest any content as-to-that. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above at the start of this thread, see Borchers, Callum. “Roy Moore’s open letter to Sean Hannity, annotated”, Washington Post (November 16, 2017): “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, power~enwiki, but that doesn't get to the point. Only one of the relationships was legally age-inappropriate, but several of them were alleged to involve sexual assault and that is the point. Also I don't think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice that he did something illegal. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would work Melanie.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also not convinced he was accused of sexual assault (or if he was, that those accusations were considered credible). The relationship with a 14-year old would have been sexual abuse, not assault. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That’s kind of a separate issue. “Sexual assault” is a fuzzy term because it can be used in different senses.  The primary sense is often rape, but other senses include any kind of sexual touching without consent.  I agree we ought to be clear about which way we’re using that term, if we use it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to decide if his getting physical with them amounted to sexual assault or not. The Reliable Sources are calling it sexual assault and that's what we follow. And we don't need to specify the details in the lede. That's what the article is for. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the reliable sources make clear that when they say “sexual assault” they aren’t referring to rape then we need to make that clear too (unless our purpose is to mislead which it isn’t).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If they meant rape they would have said rape. The terms are not synonymous. And note that we're not saying he DID it - we're just reporting that claims were made. "During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them". Accusations were made, he denies the assault and underage parts of the accusations - that is the situation we are reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ”Sexual assault” is usually seen as rape and is often defined as rape, so reliable sources use “sexual assault” to mean rape all the time without using the word “rape”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can find Reliable Sources specifying they mean "sexual assualt but not rape" then we can add it. Personally I haven't seen any source that felt it was necessary to spell that out. And again, Reliable Sources are what we follow. Not our own opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven’t advocated for any particular change to that part of the lead yet, and if I do it will not be opinion-based, for sure.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's original version is fine. Adding above the age of consent is not fine. It misrepresents sources by undue emphasis.- MrX 23:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only one who thinks it’s undue emphasis to tell readers that if Moore dated 16-year-olds that wouldn’t have been a crime. I’ve cited gobs of sources above, and it would occupy all of three words.   It would be absurd to discuss “16” in the lead without saying what the significantce of that number is.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. Where are we accusing him of a crime in the lead? Are you saying that we should?- MrX 00:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was responding to power~enwiki's suggestion to say "one of which would have violated Alabama's age-of-consent laws". We don't accuse him of a crime and we shouldn't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Mr. X that it does not belong here. TBH the obsession with including it is creepy and borderline apologia for stalking teen girls. Artw (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. "stalking. The [criminal] offense of following or loitering near another … to annoy or harass that person or to commit a further crime." You may want to cite your source for this allegation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MrX, the lead currently says Moore “did not deny approaching or dating teenagers”. That falsely indicates he did not deny dating 13-year-old and 14-year olds, et cetera, and thus insinuates Moore is an admitted criminal.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What? It does nothing of the sort.  Volunteer Marek   00:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Moore issued a denial regarding dating underage teens and we dishonestly say he issued no denial.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that?  Volunteer Marek   00:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See the first comment in this section.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean the one that DOESN'T say "dating underage teens"?  Volunteer Marek   00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hold it, User:Anythingyouwant. Here we are discussing possible wording, and you said above "I haven’t advocated for any particular change to that part of the lead yet, and if I do it will not be opinion-based, for sure." But then instead of "advocating" for a change in wording, you went ahead and added the following horrible construction: "...but did not deny approaching or dating teenagers who were not underage." Whatever we ultimately decide to say, it is bound to be better than that. I am going to revert it, and if you have a proposal for a change to this under-discussion wording, propose it here, please. Like I did. Like Wikipedians do. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up two very different things. I have not suggested any change to the “sexual assault” language.  Very obviously, I have suggested changing the WP:BLP violation regarding Moore’s denial about dating teenagers.  As best as I could tell from the comments above, the people objecting to my initial proposal wanted to follow the “underage” language in the source, rather than using the equivalent “age of consent” language.  So I accommodated them.  And you revert without any substantive rationale at all, restoring a blatant BLP violation.  Why not wait and see if anyone objects to my attempt to meet their unreasonable nitpicky demands?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop insisting that other uses changes are BLP violations when they are not, it is deeply unhelpful. This is the fifth or six time I've asked you this, so yes, per the heading maybe we are going to a noticeboard soon. Artw (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s very deeply unhelpful for you to deny that our lead contains a glaring BLP violation: saying the BLP subject did not deny behavior (criminal behavior!) when he actually did.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What Artw said. As for your addition: propose your wording here, and let's discuss it. If you can come up with a less clumsy wording, maybe it will get consensus and can be added to the article. In fact, go ahead and propose your "did not deny... not underage" suggestion, in a new paragraph, and see if anyone likes it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The way I look at it, the noticeboards (outside of AN/I and AE) are valuable for problems on low activity articles. If an article enjoys the eyes of numerous experienced editors, noticeboards just add a time-wasting pause after which the problem is just sent back to talk. Present your best case here. O3000 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My two proposals
I made two proposals, both as article edits. Proposal #1 (with new language in bold) is that Moore:

That was rejected because the source speaks of “underage” rather than “age of consent”. So proposal #2 (with new language in bold) is that Moore:

I won’t stop saying the truth at this talk page: that it’s a gross BLP violation for us to say Moore did not deny something that he did partly deny. Ban me if you want, but I’d say the same about Charles Manson or Mother Theresa. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we need to say he did not deny anything in the lede. Remove the whole sentence. The double negative is too awkward for the lede. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.” We can’t include allegations in the lead while burying a denial in the article body.  The two proposals I gave both imply a partial denial about dating teenage girls, and that needs to be included if the lead continues to say there were claims about dating numerous teenage girls.  My proposals #1 and #2 are essentially the same, I’d prefer to avoid the double negative by using proposal #1, but proposal #2 also gets across Moore’s partial denial.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then say "but denied any criminal wrongdoing" and avoid the excessive wordiness. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, in the future please make your proposals as talk page proposals - not as article edits. I don't like the "did not deny" format, for reasons I explained above, so I don't care for either of these. How about something like this: "Moore denied dating underage girls or sexually assaulting anyone, but acknowledged that he had approached and dated older teenagers." --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever you like, just get rid of the current lie in the lead, and I recommend pipe linking underage. I'm off to WP:AE, bye.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What lie? There was no any lie in the lead. The text was completely BLP consistent. Yes, it can be possibly improved as suggested by MelanieN, but this is just a slightly different wording. My very best wishes (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A note on User:DHeyward's edit and edit summary here. The source does not say "teenage women", and in fact I haven't seen a single source which used this formulation. Additionally, the edit summary is false ("He did not deny dating teenage women"). What Moore actually said was: "remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother" and "I seemed to remember her as a good girl". Hannity's pertinent question was ''""Let me ask you this you do remember these girls would it be unusual for you as a 32 year old guy to have dated a woman as young as 17? That would be a 15 year difference or a girl 18. Do you remember dating girls that young at that time?"'' to which he replied - not denied it - "Not generally, no".  Volunteer Marek   09:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He also said that he “did not date underage girls”. Is that denial consistent with the lead as presently written?  No, it is not.  The BLP subject said that, and the BLP lead does not reflect that he said it.  We lie. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

i would suggest We should include what makes this admission WP:N in the lede. Above is why this is important and relavent.Casprings (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever the wording, it needs to clarify he denies anything that would be criminal. He states “I do recognize the names of two of these young women: Debbie Wesson and Gloria Thacker".  That seems to be the list of all the women he's admitted to dating.  If he's admitted to more, then cite a source but "women" is the term he used as well as "young ladies."  As it stands now, the wording is akin to saying he did not deny committing felonies, which of course he did deny anything that would be criminal.  It should be reworded or immediately removed.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't unless that is a key point that most sources mention (it's not). We're not his lawyer or his PR firm.- MrX 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please self revert your edit. It's awkwardly worded, poorly formatted, and you have essentially bypassed this discussion to re-insert the very wording that is disputed. It's not a compromise and this is not the time to WP:BEBOLD. Thank you.- MrX 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Casprings. I wish more editors edited collaboratively like you do.- MrX 14:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a key point and it's mentioned in the sources. We are also not his prosecutor or political opponent.  When we are discussing what he admits or denies, it should be what he admits or denies, not roundabout wording to imply he admitted to crimes.  He has only acknowledged dating two women of the myriad that have made complaints.  It is not news that he dated younger women and in fact his wife was 24 when they married and he was 38.  Do the math to when he was 32 to see what that means.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a key point, otherwise most of the sources would highlight it in the ledes of their articles. A lot of things are "mentioned" in sources, but not everything is of central importance. Editing an encyclopedia requires editorial judgement so that articles are not overwhelmed with minutiae.


 * In fact, the original Washington Post article buries this information in the 39th paragraph of the article. More importantly, they mention it in the context of the criminality of molesting a 14 year old:
 * What editors like Anythingyouwant are trying to do is use "age of consent" to justify Moore dating 16 year olds, when in fact, the source is using it to highlight the fact that Moore would have committed sexual assault, if the allegation are true.- user talk:MrX 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What editors like Anythingyouwant are trying to do is use "age of consent" to justify Moore dating 16 year olds, when in fact, the source is using it to highlight the fact that Moore would have committed sexual assault, if the allegation are true.- user talk:MrX 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal
Does anyone object to the following formulation? (italics are my proposed replacement for the "did not deny" sentence; the other two sentences are what is currently in the article; I am including them here for context): "During the Senate race, claims surfaced that while in his 30s, Moore had pursued numerous teenage girls and sexually assaulted some of them, including one girl who was 14.[5] Moore denied dating underage girls or sexually assaulting anyone, but acknowledged that he had sometimes approached and dated older teenagers.  Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[8][6][9]" (I inserted "sometimes" because in his reply he said that he did "not generally" date teenagers.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can only find two women that he's acknowledged dating. The question was "At that time in your life, let me ask you this you do remember these girls would it be unusual for you as a 32-year-old guy to have dated a woman as young as 17?" and the answer that we are basing the comment on is "Not generally, no. If did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything but I don't remember anything like that.".  The question bracketed the age to 17 years old.  We should use the age given instead of "older teenagers" which is unnecessarily vague.  The WaPo transcript provides question and answer.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "older teenagers" is vague. What would people think about saying "high school girls" instead? The age range 16-17 would include high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Teenagers are from the age of 11 to the age 19. 16 and older would be older teenagers. Txantimedia (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A teenager is 13 to 19 inclusive. An 11-year-old or 12-year-old is not a teenager (no matter how much they may want to be).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "High school girls" is over-inclusive. Per our article Ninth grade, "Students are usually 14–15 years old."  And that doesn't even include junior high.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here: Moore denies he dated anyone younger than 17.  One of his accusers says she was 16 but if we are reporting on Moore's denial, he bracketed it at 17.  That's a senior in high school.  Second, the only one of the 4 women that has alleged any sexual contact is the woman who said she was 14.  The 3 other women said it didn't extend beyond kissing.  Moore didn't even characterize them as dates but didn't dispute that language. --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're excluding Nelson here.  Volunteer Marek   10:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It would be fine to say "Two women accused Moore of sexual assault.  He denied both of them."  Lumping 2 sexual assaults in with multiple consensual, non-sexual dating is just not okay.  I would be equally upset if two rapes were dismissed because they were lumped in with multiple consensual, non-sexual dating. --DHeyward (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - It's clear, neutrally stated, and verifiable.- MrX 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Likewise. Artw (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously that’s the kind of thing I’ve been arguing for all along and am glad to see people finally endorsing it. Too bad it requires all this drama.  But, we should pipe link underage, and also make sure we include a footnote that includes Moore’s denial: “I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose additions. Artw (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree with this suggestion. I have replaced the reference with a better one and included the quote from his statement in the footnote. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The footnote is fine, but piping 'underage' to underage sex is a terrible idea. Dating≠sex.- MrX 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The controversy is not because Moore allegedly engaged in platonic dating, if indeed there is such a thing.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Certinly the accusation of sexual contact with a 14 year old is not platonic dating. But the only one of the 4 women that has alleged any sexual contact is the woman who said she was 14.  That's a very serious charge and Moore denies even knowing her. The 3 other women said it didn't extend beyond kissing.  Moore didn't even characterize them as dates but didn't dispute that language when used.  The three women that said they were 16-18 years-old are accusing him of pursuing romantic relationships but didn't engage in sexual activity. From the WaPo None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact. Of the four women, the youngest (14) 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..  Unless there's something else, he is denying any contact with Corfman and denying he dated underage girls. In this case, "dating" means dating, not sexual contact which has not been alleged by the 3 "older teenagers." --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to settle this with a couple well-crafted sentences. ~Awilley (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the best wording would be, "Moore denied dating or sexually assaulting underage girls,[1] but did not deny that he had approached underage girls or dated older teenage girls." We don't need to say that he denied sexually assaulting anyone; it's only teenage women who are accusing him of sexual assault, so let's limit the denial to what he's been accused of. "Sometimes" serves no purpose. "Did not deny" is better than "acknowledged"; from my reading, I don't think he's ever clearly, affirmatively acknowledged any of this. Lastly, as was pointed out to me, he did deny dating underage girls, but did he ever deny approaching them? This would include harassment, groping, etc., so it matters. We should be as specific as possible here. Nick845 (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That proposal sounds like he was reluctant to deny assaulting non-underage females. We could also add that he did not deny sucking the blood of vampires, which he did not deny, did he? So I oppose that proposal, Melanie’s is fine (except for the afterthought about using the words “high school”).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree. Both proposals might be parsing too much. Instead, let's just say, "Moore denied engaging in "sexual misconduct", but did not deny that he had approached underage girls or dated older teenage girls." His official statement makes a blanket denial of "sexual misconduct." We can qualify that denial based on his non-denial, when asked, of the other two things. Nick845 (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that it is false. Moore did deny dating underage girls on Hannity. Txantimedia (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. There's a difference between approaching a girl and dating her. Maybe you'll think more clearly if you watch less Hannity. Nick845 (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, Nick, he did specifically deny dating underage girls in his written statement to Hannity. If you are suggesting that he might have approached underage girls but gotten turned down (i.e. tried unsuccessfully to date them) - well, as far as I know nobody has accused him of that. His denial stands. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem, I'd say, is that Moore's specific denials have been so slippery. Granting that, though, there are still two issues with your sentence. The first is "sometimes" - that's a weasel word that serves no purpose other than to put Moore's actions in a softer light. The second is using "acknowledged", rather than "did not deny." What Moore said, when asked if he had dated older teenage girls, was "not generally, no." That sounds much more like a non-denial than an affirmative acknowledgment to me. I'm inclined to make those changes myself, but I'll wait for now. There's also a third issue, though not about this sentence - the 28-year old's groping allegation is nowhere to be found in the entire paragraph. I know it used to be there. If we're being complete, then it should go back. Nick845 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree on using underage. Underage implies below the age of consent. Moore has denied dating anyone under the age of consent and has categorically denied committing any sexual assaults. By using underage, you imply that he has dated girls under the age of consent, which is false with the one exception of Corfman, whose claims he denies. In fact, I would argue that there is nothing controversial about Moore dating older teenage girls when he was a single bachelor. It's only being considered controversial in the context of the sexual assault allegations. The two should be separated and dealt with in entirely different manners. Sexual assault is a serious matter, possibly even criminal behavior. Dating teenagers when you're in your thirties was done in those days, especially in the South, and was non-controversial. Moore claims that he never dated a girl without her mother's permission, and one of the so-called accusers stated that her mother would not allow her to date Moore. If this article is to maintain NPOV, it simply must move away from these claims. I really don't care if RS "reports" it. It's wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not regurgitate the latest gossip from the media. Of the nine women who have come forward, three have made serious allegations that should be taken very seriously. The other six have made claims that don't even rise to the level of impropriety. He never attacked them. He approached some for dates and was turned down. Others he dated and some he kissed. All of his behavior with those six was well within the law and within custom at the time. Txantimedia (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your view of propriety here is irrelevant. "I really don't care if RS 'reports' it" means you might as well remove yourself from this discussion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? The policy on BLP is very clear. Just because something is RS does not mean it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, this entire article fits the definition of WP:RECENTISM perfectly. Numerous admins have pointed out problems with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and I have quoted the policies of handling BLP on controversial topics, yet this distortion of the story continues. I've seen Moore called a pedophile, when, even if he's guilty of all that's alleged, is a false claim. Yet it goes unchallenged by many. The entire article is now being considered for deletion because of the rampant non-NPOV nature of the edits. Even now the use of the word "underage" is being discussed here despite the fact that only one of the nine was underage, Moore has both denied her charges and denied ever dating underage girls. Txantimedia (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Are you still talking about this article, or some other article, or something you read somewhere else on the internet which upset you? It's hard to tell.  Volunteer Marek   07:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There's clearly more support for MelanieN's proposal than anything else, so I've made that change. I'm not closing the discussion, as there are additional changes still being discussed. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, power~enwiki. I was about to suggest doing the same. I think this proposed sentence is based on Reliable Sources and covers what we want to cover. I agree with retaining "older teenagers" rather than replacing it with "high school girls", and not linking "underage" to "underage sex". As for some of the concerns raised here, nobody is calling him a pedophile (and if anyone does I will revdel it, as I have in the past). Nobody is accusing him of crimes. To me this wording is a big improvement over the "he did not deny" formulation, which I have always disliked (it kind of smacks of "have you stopped beating your wife?") --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Coming on
The lead now says Moore “acknowledged that he had sometimes approached and dated older teenagers.[5] Independent witnesses confirmed that Moore had a reputation for coming on to teenage girls.[6][7][8]” If he acknowledged it, why do we need the sentence about independent witnesses?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to have it because it adds context to his weak acknowledgement that he "sometimes" ("generally not") dated teenagers. Multiple sources have indicated that he made it a practice and was known for it. But let's discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems okay later in the BLP with elaboration, but as written in the lead it seems either redundant or confusing. Other reasonable opinions and suggestions are welcome, of course.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegations - revision proposal
The section 'Sexual abuse allegations' has fairly detailed accounts of the alleged behavior, including that Corfman's mother's account. However, there is nothing about reactions, especially by members of the Republican party. This section should look more like the lead of Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations.

I suggest a rewrite. Something like

Please share your thoughts on this proposed change.- MrX 12:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there are nine (actually I believe the number is higher now) woman - we don't need to describe three of them for no reason. Also remember that when copying text from another article it needs to be attributed (an edit summary of "copied from xyz, see there for attribution"). Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The current version clearly explains why three particular women are being described in detail and it’s because they made the most shocking allegations. That seems apt to me.  So I favor the current version.  But adding a sentence about reactions would be fine.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Galobtter, yes I forgot the attribution. I have added it above.- MrX 15:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely an improvement, the first version needed a copyedit, and the reactions was missing. zzz (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See, however, WP:EDITORIALIZING. "Words used to link two statements such as ... however ... may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about President Donald Trump, however, expressed support for Moore.? The source has "President Trump broke with leading Republicans on Tuesday" and "But Mr. Trump set aside those concerns" after a paragraph describing McConnell's and Ryan's opposition (like we have). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the reactions paragraph. I don't have a strong view about 'however'. I don't think it is necessarily editorializing and it does make the writing slightly more interesting, but it's not essential.- MrX 21:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement, except that I would delete the phrase "when one was as young as 14". It doesn't belong in that sentence. Three women didn't describe that; only one of them did, and her age is detailed in the paragraph about her. The point is that out of the various women who have come forward to say that he came on to them or asked them for a date or made what they felt were inappropriate advances, three actually accused him of some form of sexual assault - and those are the three where we need to get specific about what they said. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a nit-pick: don't say "over the age of 16," which would mean at least 17. Say "age 16 or over" or "at least 16" or something equivalent. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we revive this discussion? The article still has that clunky construction ("One of those three women... Another of those three women") and I would like to see it replaced by something more readable such as your proposed rewrite. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The intro paragraph describes a group of nine, then a sub-group of three. Then the later paragraphs start talking about specific women.  However it’s phrased, it should remain clear that the later paragraphs are not talking about additional women, but rather the women in the sub-group of three.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to be enough support to replace the text, similar to what I have proposed. I won't have time to do a proper job of it myself for a least a day or two. - MrX 00:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In your version, it is unclear that the later paragraphs are not talking about additional women, rather than talking about the women described in the first paragraph as the sub-group of three. Your version seems highly objectionable for that reason.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. The first paragraph establishes that there were three women who were sexually assaulted, including a 14 year old. Then the subsequent three paragraphs detail the three sexual assaults, including one involving a 14 year old. I give our readers credit for having basic reading comprehension and deductive reasoning abilities. Your suggestion might be more appropriate for Roy Moore.- MrX 00:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My basic reading comprehension and deductive reasoning abilities lead me to see that the first paragraph establishes that there were three women who were sexually assaulted plus six more women who made accusations. If the rest of the paragraphs detail the former, and not the latter, and not additional women, then say so.  Writing clearly is not that hard, and one way to do it would be to name the three women in the first paragraph as the ones who were allegedly assaulted, then refer to them by last name only in the next paragraphs.  It’s not rocket science.  Or we could keep doing it the way we’re doing it (saying each one is one of “those three”)&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This sentence makes it sound like Moore assaulted Corfman outside the courthouse: One of the three women accusing Moore of assault was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32, after Moore had introduced himself to her and her mother outside the courthouse where he worked.
 * Perhaps reword it like this: One of the three women accusing Moore of assault was Leigh Corfman who said that Moore sexually assaulted her in 1979, when she was 14 and he was 32. Moore had introduced himself to her and her mother outside the courthouse where he worked. According to Corfman, he later took her to his house, where he assaulted her.
 * That concern is addressed in the proposed version above. There's no reason to include detail about where Moore first met the girl.- MrX 22:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important to include Phillips's accusation.

Jaime T. Phillips described a sexual relationship when she was 15 and Moore was 45. Phillips says that Moore impregnated her, then forced her to go to Mississippi to have an abortion.

You also forgot to include the very serious charge made by Jaime Phillips. She has made a credible claim that Moore had an affair with her when she was 15 (and he was 45), got her pregnant, and took her across state lines for an abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.81.209 (talk • contribs) 21:52, November 29, 2017 (UTC)
 * The accusation was a fraud. If it belongs anywhere, it would be at Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations. O3000 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. How is it even possible to know about this accusation and not know that it's a fraud?- MrX 22:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore co-authored course saying women shouldn't run for office
https://articles.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/study_co-authored_by_roy_moore.amp - should possibly go under Political Beliefs? Artw (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Disgusting as that is, the course appears to have 28 hours of lectures and another person gave that one. O3000 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like guilt by association. Is there any proof that he had input or provided direction for the section the other lecturer taught? Txantimedia (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He is a listed author of the book. Artw (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is he the author of all the content in the book? If so, does the book include the content in question? If so, then it's relevant. Otherwise, I think it's guilt by association. Txantimedia (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Amazon, there are four authors of the book. Law and Government: An Introductory Study Course Paperback – October 18, 2011 by Doug Phillips (Author),‎ Dr. Joseph C. Morecraft (Author),‎ Chief Justice Roy Moore (Author),‎ Dr. Paul Jehle (Author) Without evidence that the book includes what the electurer said and that Moore authored that section, I think it's weak tea. Txantimedia (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And he may very well believe it. But, it's too weak a connection unless there is a statement of his supporting the content of that lecture. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I"ve been looking for one, unsuccessfully. Plenty of cites for his views on homosexuality, but nothing so far on women in politics. The ThinkProgess article that all this is based on doesn't state that Moore authored the content or endorsed it. Txantimedia (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The co-authorship indicates an active hand in collating the course, at a minimum I'd call that an endorsement of its contents. Artw (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * People generally don't attach their names to very obviously controversial statements like this if they have a problem with them. Agreed that this is at least an endorsement. --RevivesDarks (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this is that the origin of the story is ThinkProgess coupled with the fact that there is no independent confirmation that he has ever expressed these views. People often attach their names to things that they later regret. Claiming that he endorsed the view assumes several facts not in evidence; that he was aware the view was expressed in the book and that he agrees with it. When people are asked to contribute chapters to a book (as I have done), they should be aware of the general tenor of the book, but may well not be aware of the details in the book. That is certainly the case with me. I wrote one chapter in a book and have only read excerpts of the other chapters. So far, I'm not seeing RS reporting this. The only sources I have found are Think Progress, AL.com, Huffington Post and Independent (listed in the order they published). The first two are left-leaning sources that need to be supported by more independent and reliable sources, especially for BLP (poilitics). The latter two I don't know a lot about. I would want to see if WaPO, WSJ or NYT pick up the story with more details. At least confirming that Moore was aware of the content. Txantimedia (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/01/exploring-the-radical-roots-of-roy-moores-theocratic-christianity/ - Exploring the radical roots of Roy Moore’s theocratic Christianity Artw (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I've never even heard of Rushdooney. I don't attend any church. Don't hang out with Christians. (Some of my friends are Christians. Some are communists.) Yet some of what the article describes as Christian Reconstruction are things that I believe in; smaller government, the role of the family, the belief that expression of belief in a God is not a violation of the Constitution. So, according to this professor, I would be one who is influenced by someone that I've never heard of and by thoughts and ideas that have never been expressed to me by anyone. Again, this is smearing with a very broad brush. I do no think it belongs in an article about Moore. That's my opinion. I have yet to see any direct statement that Moore has expressed agreement with these claims. In fact, that is implied but never proven with any adduced evidence in the article. Txantimedia (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/republican-women-in-alabama-sound-off-on-moore Republican Women in Alabama Sound Off on Roy Moore Artw (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it has now risen to the point that it merits a mention. Why don't you suggest some verbiage here? Perhaps a subsection under 2017 Senate special election? Txantimedia (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's a guilt-by-association beat-up. It certainly shouldn't be implied that this is Moore's belief. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with StAnselm, however, because of the political ramifications raised in the New Yorker article, I think it should be included in the article. I was expecting Artw to put something up here that we could work on together. I'll try to put something together. Txantimedia (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Government course controversy
On November 29, 2017, a story broke that Moore was a co-author of an evangelical Christian government and law course that taught, among other things, that women should not run for office and, if they did, men should not vote for them. Although no evidence indicated that Moore had written that section of the course, the story impacted voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker. According to the story, some voters have changed their minds about voting for Moore, although others are unmoved.

Thoughts? Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs) date (UTC)
 * Wait a moment - who's changed their minds about voting for Moore? None of the critics cited in the article were going to vote for him anyway. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that should be reworded. One said she was "prayerfully considering voting for Doug Jones" but did not say if she had previously planned on voting for Moore. Another said she was never going to vote for Moore, but she changed her mind from not voting to voting for Jones. So perhaps reword it like this: some voters have changed their minds about voting or about who they would vote for, although others are unmoved by the controversy. Txantimedia (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good proposal.  Volunteer Marek   02:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it still seems like a beat-up. There is nothing in the article that suggests it's having an impact on votes, as one critic lamented: "BeShears told me that she fears that this latest revelation will have a marginal effect on the vote." StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, how about this? some voters have changed their minds about voting or about who they would vote for, although others are unmoved by the controversy. Some think that the controversy may have little effect on the outcome of the race. if editors think it's still not worthy of inclusion, I'm not opposed to waiting for more reporting on the story. Txantimedia (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is still with the preceding sentence: "the story impacted voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker." It would be fairer to say, "the story had little impact on voters in Alabama..." StAnselm (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, how does this look?

On November 29, 2017, a story broke that Moore was a co-author of an evangelical Christian government and law course that taught, among other things, that women should not run for office and, if they did, men should not vote for them. There is no indication that Moore wrote that section of the course, and the story appears to have had little impact on voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker. Some voters have changed their minds about voting or about whom they would vote for, while others appear to be unmoved by the controversy. Txantimedia (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it. You're extrapolated from one to some in the last sentence. Also, I think it is fairer to say "Moore did not write that section of the course" instead of "There is no indication that Moore wrote that section of the course". StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can say that. The sources haven't said whether he did or not. Do you know otherwise? Txantimedia (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was a series of audio lectures on CD. As the original ThinkProgress article made clear, the offending statement was in a lecture by William Einwechter. StAnselm (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I knew there was a book, and I missed that it was CDs. That changes things. I'm not convinced this needs to go in the article now. It's clearly a guilt by association smear, and it appears to have had little or no effect on Alabama voters. Txantimedia (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sooo... if we had to mention it (and I still don't think we do) it would be something like:

On November 29, 2017, a story broke that Moore was a co-author of an evangelical Christian government and law course that taught, among other things, that women should not run for office and, if they did, men should not vote for them. Moore did not produce that section of the course, and the story appears to have had little impact on voters in Alabama, according to the New Yorker.


 * Still looks like a massive beat-up (unlike the sexual abuse allegations, of course, which now constitute a critical part of Moore's career). StAnselm (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Am broadly okay with this wording. I guess the date is okay being there if it;s part of the election coverage, not entirely sure that's the right placement. Artw (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm for including this, so I think we should let it sit until/unless more develops from it. Txantimedia (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Nitpick: I have changed all uses of "November 29th" to "November 29, 2017" per Wikipedia style guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sufficient coverage that we should cover it somehow, I went and added the suggested version. We can always move it out of the elction subsection later. Artw (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose including it - especially given the new information that someone else contributed that material. There does not seem to be consensus here to include it. I count three saying to include it and four (now including me) now five saying not to. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Since Moore did not author the course material about women (unless it was his job to review/approve overall course content), it probably doesn't belong in his BLP unless its widespread reporting becomes a salient factor affecting the election, drawing appropriate secondary source commentary, etc.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This book was authored by a pastor, a rabbi, and an imam. I don’t think you can attribute the words of one to another. I also have a book by Julia Child and Jacques Pépin. They don’t agree on everything. O3000 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information on high school attended
Roy Moore attended Emma Sansom High School, Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, in the ninth grade. He transferred to Etowah High School (Etowah County) for the remaining three years of his high school education. He later returned to Emma Sansom High School and was the guest speaker at the high school's annual Veterans Day Program, which I was the co-sponsor for twenty+ years. In fact, Roy and I were in the same ninth grade Civics Class taught by Miss Lera Grady. I selected Roy to speak at our Veterans Day Program because he was a West Point Graduate and a veteran of the VietNam Conflict. It I were selecting a speaker for this year's school program, it would not be Roy Moore because of his extreme believes and negative views against various sectors of our population. Thank you, Richard D. Wright Emma Sansom High School Class of 1965 Gadsden City Schools Retired Teacher 1973-2006