Talk:Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 1

Original Source
The original local reporting for this story was by Glynn Wilson (a journalist from Birmingham, Alabama), in the New American Journal. The November 12th article is entitled "Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows, but Jesus. Not this."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.91.131 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

More on upcoming election
We should put more about the upcoming election in the article.Casprings (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We could turn this into an alternative Roy Moore article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest the following sentence in the second paragraph. "The scandal is notable because it threatens to upset Moore's chances in the election. Election of a Democrat could change the balance of power in the Senate.

Title
This article was originally titled "Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal". As a result of discussion at the AfD it was changed to "Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations", based on the precedent of other Wikipedia articles such as Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, and Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. User:Casprings then moved it to "Roy Moore sexual abuse scandal" with the reasoning "1. Same nameing as other like articles. 2. Less pov. Allegations slants towards it not being true". I moved it back to the "allegations" wording saying "This is how comparable articles are named. See examples and discussion at the AfD page. Discuss there or on talk page before moving again". Any further discussion or comments about the title? MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the women in this article did not allege any sexual abuse or even any attempted sexual abuse. Correct?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. As the article lede makes clear. Would that suggest that "misconduct" (comparable to Trump and Clinton) would be better than "abuse" in the title? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead says "Multiple other women described Moore pursuing a romantic relationship with them when they were aged 16 to 22." Readers will probably see that as including additional attempted sexual abuse, because that's what the article title says, which could be easily fixed by adding "above the age of consent" into that sentence of the lead.  As regards the article title, it could be changed to "Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations and former attraction to teenagers" (or something like that), the latter being why most of the women are mentioned in this article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Being above the age of consent has no meaning if RS don't care about it. If it is still reported as being alleged sexual abuse despite them being above the age of consent - that's probably what we should report it. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 16:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. On such a sensitive topic we should stick to the sources and not editorialize. --RevivesDarks (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be moved back. The article is about what the women said but also the effect of the event in the culture and society. This scandal better captures that. Moreover, these are muliple accounts on the record and with evidence. Seems like allegation slants the title towards a POV of not believing the women.Casprings (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s now at “Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations”. That seems okay to me for now, though I’d support changing ”abuse” to “conduct”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , if this gets moved again, would you mind moving the edit notice for the discretionary sanctions with it? I'm assuming you will be keeping a closer eye here than I am. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I fixed the one listed at the BLP section. There must be a second listing there that I can't find, because the AE log still shows up under "what links here" for the original title. --MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that too, the part I'd forgotten :) I was actually thinking of Template:Editnotices/Page/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, which doesn't get moved everytime this page does. It also requires sysop or template editor access to move, so I'm just making a note here so that you/anyone with the bit who is active on this page might think of it if it gets moved again. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Change to misconduct
As far as I can tell, most RS call it sexual misconduct allegations - including the nytimes and time magazine. So far I see only sensationalist outlets like the daily mail seem to call it sexual abuse allegations. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 16:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

NYtimes says he is "mired in a sexual misconduct scandal". CBS says "allegations of sexual misconduct". NPR too talks about of sexual misconduct allegations. However RS also talk about many of allegations being sexual assault allegations. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 16:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I second this, especially given the discussion on the AFD for the page, as it would be more consistent with the rest of the page's analogues on Wikipedia. Cook&#39;s Kitchen (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I third it. Sexual abuse means molestation, and most of the allegations aren't about that.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "most of the allegations aren't about that" - I think you just made a pretty good case for why it should be "assault". If someone gets charged with one count murder and four counts petty larceny, would we title the article "Arrest for petty larceny" because "most" charges weren't murder? Come on!  Volunteer Marek   06:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ”Murder and petty larceny” would cover it pretty well.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is a wide range here and abuse fits. We should also add someonething about age.Casprings (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Roy moore sexual misconduct and assault allegations is the most accurate, but it's a bit wordy. But I think we have to go with RS which mostly call it misconduct when referring to all of them generally. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 05:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I found a CNN source that says "amid multiple sexual abuse allegations". Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 05:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This looks like cherry picking for "misconduct". Most sources call it assault. , (even Fox),, , , , , , , , , , , , , ... and I could keep going.  Volunteer Marek  06:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, when individual allegations are talked about, those that are assault allegations are referred to as assault allegations. But I was looking at how it was described as a whole ("mired in sexual misconduct scandal etc")and there misconduct seems to be used more as far as I can see. I actually don't particularly like the change - I don't think misconduct adequately describes the situation. However I do see that interestingly fox news uses "sexual assault allegations cloud". But I do not see "abuse" being used, which is the current title. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 13:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ”Roy Moore sexual abuse, misconduct and related allegations” would work.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What about "Roy Moore sexual misconduct and assault allegations"? Because I haven't seen much use of the word "abuse allegations". Either they're referred to as assault allegations or misconduct allegations. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 13:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The main thing here is the age of the victims. That needs to be in the title..Casprings (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That may feel important, but most RS don't care to report on that when referring to the allegations. (e.g, "sexual assault allegations" not "teenage sexual assault allegations".Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 14:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t like “sexual misconduct and assault” because we ought to pick a title that covers the section on “Allegations of pursuing romantic relationships” which doesn’t really seem to be captured by “sexual misconduct”. How about “Roy Moore sexual misconduct and related allegations”?  That’s fairly concise as far as Wikipedia articles go.  We may need a survey.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that romantic relationships section needs to be changed. In some of them the women were disturbed or were harassed. Maybe split to "allegations of consensual relationships with minors" and "allegations of harassment of women" Misconduct does cover that harassment..but maybe not the previous one. I could support your suggestion. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 14:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Also I didn't do anything like a survey or RM as the page is at AfD. But it looks to be kept. Galobtter (talkó  tuó  mió) 14:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Every story I read is focused on the age of the victim. That is what RS’s focus on.Casprings (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Forget all the compound titles. We need a single word or phrase that characterizes the allegations. IMO that word is "sexual misconduct". That covers a variety of allegations at the Bill Clinton article. It covers a variety of allegations at the Donald Trump article. "Abuse" as per the current title is also OK, but "misconduct" would be better, because it includes all the times when he inappropriately pursued high school girls or very young women, making them uncomfortable or making them feel harassed, but not actually doing anything physical. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Age of consent
User:RevivesDarks reverted an edit of mine here. Reverts are inappropriate where no reason is given beyond "no consensus". See WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I have no idea how to respond to a revert that gives no rationale. And I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I’m somehow avoiding discussion at the Roy Moore article. The “age of consent” language was already in this article before I put it back with seven references; it was previously removed here with a request for references. This is a WP:BLP matter, because we should not suggest he may have been attempting statutory rape or the like with girls 16 or older; the sources are very clear that that did not happen and could not have happened. Like Moore, hate Moore, whatever, let’s be accurate.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Would agree with revert. Anythingyouwant, you seriously need to drop the stick on the age of consent thing because it's beginning to look really creepy. Artw (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, User:Anythingyouwant, I didn't revert you just because of 'no consensus', I reverted you because you were already engaged in a discussion on the Roy Moore talk page about some content which was inconclusive but did not appear to be going your way, and you responded by trying to force the same content which was under dispute and unlikely to be deemed fit for inclusion into the lead section into this article where you probably thought it stood a better chance of staying in unchallenged. I don't need to insinuate anything - your actions speak for themselves. --RevivesDarks (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You apparently did not read my comment above: the “age of consent” language was already in this article before I put it back with seven references; it was previously removed here with a request for references. You still have given zero reasons why the content I inserted should not be in this article, or why reinsertion of it with the requested RS would have to await developments at a different article, orcwhy you disagree that this is a blatant BLP violation that you are engaged in, User:RevivesDarks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So you reverted because of a on going discussion on a different article? That is not a valid reason, just disruptive. PackMecEng (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the youngest victim was 14 why does the lead say between 16 and 22?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It does mention 14 as the youngest alleged victim. The ones he pursued relationships with were between the ages of 16 and 22 at that time. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 14:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Anachronism: No reference should be made to Age of Consent unless you can prove that in Alabama way back then there was any such concept.  Were not fornication & adultery crimes in those days, no concept of "age of consent"? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC))

Requested move 18 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) per discussion below Mahveotm (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations → Roy Moore teenage sexual assault allegations – 1. Sources use the term assault when they name discuss this topic:, (even Fox),, , , , , , , , , , , ,. There are certainly other allegations, but this is the most notable and should be in the title. The article should certainly coverage other elements, but the assaults are what sources focus on. 2. The second point sources focus on is the fact the victims are underaged. I would suggest that we use the term teenage because of the age of consent issues and avoiding a debate over what is underaged. Plus most sources also use the term. ,, , ,, 3. I understand any BLP concerns. First, I think the use of the term "allegations" deals with that issue. Moreover, I think there is a good argument that the word tilts the article towards not believing the women. That said, this is a well reported event and the fact that the victims are underaged and the physical nature of some events is what WP:RS focus on. Simply because something is damning to someone does not mean we don't cover it when the event is well sourced and the sourcing indicates that we focus on these elements. The proposed title is neutral based on the sources and is superior to the current title. Casprings (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose for reasons given below in discussion section.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it doesn't cover the full scope of the allegations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposed move per SMcCandlish. Two of the allegations could be described as sexual assault, but that doesn't cover the full scope of the allegations. I'd be in favor of the title "Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations" because "misconduct" also covers allegations of inappropriate behavior. FallingGravity 00:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Teenage", far from avoiding problems, gets us into some. PatGallacher (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far from an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the title accurately reflects the issue, and not all the women involved were teenagers at the time. Txantimedia (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, suggested title is less accurate.LM2000 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because his alleged behavior was not confined to teenagers. Activist (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * As I already said above, we need a survey first, and it ought to include multiple options. One of the three women who were allegedly assaulted was 28 years old.  And most of the women discussed in this article were not assaulted at all.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The title should capture what WP:RS are focusing on and calling it in their titles. Teenage and assault are the two major themes. Other things should be captured, but that is why the article is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As a purely procedural note as one of the regular admins who closes RMs: the RM process is perhaps the most open and fair to all points of view of any on Wikipedia. You are free to suggest an alternative name as a part of any move discussion, and the closer will take it into account. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I could support “Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations”.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "sexual misconduct" makes the most sense. Not everyone involved was a teenager, so we shouldn't lead with that description, and most of the reliable sources seem to tend toward "misconduct" instead of "abuse" or "assault". "Misconduct" makes sense because "sexual misconduct" isn't necessarily breaking the law, whereas "sexual abuse" implies illegality and "sexual assault" is unequivocally illegal. And not all of the allegations are about illegal activity but some are just highly inappropriate activity like a man in his 30s calling a 16 year old's school to pull her out of class to hit on her or being so creepy around teenage girls that the adults at the mall ban you from coming back. -- irn (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin please see my comment above re: moving the page notice with the discretionary sanctions alert if this page is moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference to Roy Moore's Lawyer's Reference to Delver Adams Removed
Volunteer Marek removed an addition I made yesterday describing reporting from Business Insider on a claim by Moore's lawyer that D.A. on court paperwork following Moore's signature, including from around the time of Nelson's divorce filing, referred to the initials of an assistant Delver Adams who would stamp Moore's signature, and then write his own initials D.A. afterwards. The obvious suggestion is that the D.A. on Nelson's yearbook, and thus the whole signature purportedly by Moore, was likely based off the divorce records rather than being actually written by Moore.

This is, I'll grant, now being disagreed upon. However, the argument itself is very relevant in explaining where Moore's team claims the D.A. probably comes from, and the news reports seem far from disproving this line of reasoning. It would, I think, be far better to add reference to disagreement over Moore's lawyer's remarks, than to remove a description of the remarks themselves. This article goes into plenty of details on various aspects of this scandal, and it is only right that a plausible argument made by Moore's lawyer for the inscription being forged be included. Whether the evidence is convincing or not, is another matter, but that is for Wikipedia's readers to decide.

If anyone still maintains that the Business Insider's reporting is wrong, or that my edit incorrectly summarized it (didn't "get the facts right"), please do explain why. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largest Cardinal (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably going to restore my addition in a few hours or so if I don't see any disagreement here, given that the comment by the deletion was unsubstantiated (and the same user removed as "untrue" content from the Roy Moore page I added that doesn't go beyond the content right above my addition on this page (which was left standing)--not to attack the user, but just to note that this is reason to suspect not very much thought went into these reversions). Here's a link in case anyone wants to check the correctness of my summary of the article: []

To be fair, my original edit said Moore presided over the case (which is what the initial reporting indicated), even though it turns out according to later reporting that he merely had his signature stamped on it, with another judge actually meeting with Nelson. This might have been what Volunteer Marek meant when he said I hadn't gotten the facts straight. This has no effect, however, on the argument that the D.A. following Moore's signature stood for Delver Adams and the light it shines in the question of whether the yearbook inscription was forged. If I restore my edits, I will of course correct this. Largest Cardinal (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Excessive detail for this article. Artw (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * When we're spelling out in great detail allegations against this man (including a bunch of things that aren't even criminal), shouldn't we devote at least two or three sentence to explaining an argument by his lawyer that one of the principal allegations may well be fabricated (which would vindicate Moore and would in fact be a crime on the part of whoever fabricated it--i.e. a very serious charge and much more serious than several of the one's levied against Moore)? Any other thoughts? Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's an entire article to put details like this in, just that he denied the allegations is sufficient for here without getting into a timeline of his denials and revisions to denials etc... etc... Artw (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you might have misunderstood, Artw, with all respect. This is the detailed article on allegations that we're talking about.  We're on the talk page for the allegations article, not the Roy Moore article right now.  Does that change your comment at all?  Thanks.Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yesterday I made some somewhat similar additions to the article, including (most notably) a parenthetical comment describing Moore's lawyer's reasons (and in fact, more or less Moore's own reasons) for questioning the authenticity of the signature. Volunteer Marek indicated they were too similar to changes he had previously removed and asked me to reverse them, which I did.  Does anybody have any feelings on the recent additions I had made to the Nelson section?  (See here for a link to the page before they were removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations&diff=811128243&oldid=811061203)  In my opinion, the paragraph without the modifications seems quite disjointed, with two different ideas being communicated: the contention that the signature might be fabricated and the issue of whether Moore actually ran into Nelson in the context of her divorce case.  It seems muddled, and the former idea is very hard to follow.  I was trying to expand the description of the former in the early part of the paragraph so the reader wasn't left having to guess at it from the second half, which is geared much more toward the Think Progress article (irrelevant concerning the authenticity of the signature).  Thoughts? Largest Cardinal (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I do think this is too much. It's enough to say that Moore denied, and that the lawyer implied the signature is forged. The little story they concocted about how it was forged is just a distraction from the main point. Now, if they do send it to some handwriting expert or something, then it might be worth including, but as of now, it's pretty thin.  Volunteer Marek  21:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. That helps me understand better. I guess, as a matter of substance, I (and the people I've talked with in person) have have seen it as, on its face, a pretty strong argument. Perhaps that's just bias on my part though.  My thought was that it was good for readers of Wikipedia to be able to see for themselves the content of the lawyer's argument so they can decide for themselves how plausible they think it is.  (This would, I think, be especially valuable if the standoff continues, where Nelson's lawyer makes Moore's appearance before the senate for an investigation a precondition of turning over the writing to an expert, which Moore has taken as unreasonable--leading to no handwriting analysis.  At this point, and perhaps even through the election, an argument like Moore's lawyer's, and actually looking at the handwriting images themselves, is all concerned observers and Alabama voters have to go on.) Largest Cardinal (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some may think that "Roy Moore, D.A." appearing in both the yearbook and Nelson's divorce papers is no coincidence. -Topcat777  01:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That said, I took a look back over the way the paragraph is now, and it actually seems pretty reasonable (not much reference, but enough that someone who'd find the argument interesting knows enough to consider looking into it more). My only concern at this point is that the previous paragraph quotes (incorrect) reference to him as District Attorney at the time, which might mislead readers into thinking that D.A. was exactly the right notation to follow Moore's name. Largest Cardinal (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Forcible unwanted kiss
On this edit by User:Anythingyouwant, I think it should be reverted. RS's report the kiss was forceful and unwanted. That event belongs in the assault section of the article.Casprings (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Casprings mischaracterizes the sources. The word “forcible” is not synonymous with “forceful”. The latter kind of kiss on a date is not sexual assault, and does not imply resistance. I have also corrected spelling in the section header.  Get a dictionary.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources (and other sources) also indicate it was unwanted.Casprings (talk)|
 * If you go on a date, and you kiss a girl goodbye without any resistance, that doesn’t strike me as assault or as an unwanted sexual advance, especially if it wasn’t a French kiss. I’m not the world’s leading expert, though.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * She said she found it uncomfortable. However the simplest solution to this is to see if RS call it assault or not. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 17:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lack of resistance is not consent. And she said that it scared her. Fear is an important element of sexual assault (at least in the US legal system). And at least The Guardian refers to it as sexual assault. -- irn (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that means I’ve been sexually assaulted by lots and lots of my relatives, who kissed me without permission.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Were you scared by them? Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 04:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends which relatives. I suppose that since I was under the age of consent, then I could not even allow myself to be kissed?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, you are simply trolling and de-railing the conversation. In an attempt to assume good faith and move forward with this conversation, I am going to infer from your sarcasm that you think that without resistance, it's not sexual assault. That is simply wrong. To quote from the above-linked US federal law: “Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent.” She was in fear, and he was forceful. -- irn (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The way to resolve the matter is to look at all the sources that discuss that kiss, and determine what percentage refer to it as “sexual assault”. Federal law is irrelevant unless it is applicable according to reliable sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First you argue about what constitutes sexual assault. When that tactic doesn't work, you troll with nonsense about your personal life. When you get called out for that, you simply move the goalposts. It's getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith here. -- irn (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Both I and another editor have said in this thread that the simplest solution to this is to see if RS call it assault or not. If you want to dismiss that as a bad faith suggestion, go ahead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to speak up in Anythingyouwant's defense. While I won't say what I think of what Irn described as sarcasm, or of the merits of this issue, I believe Anythingyouwant appears to have acted sincerely and in good faith.  Note that he did not move the goal-posts: his first post here was to say that the sources were mischaracterized, so it makes perfect sense for him to finish up by saying that what really matters is looking at the wording most RS use. Largest Cardinal (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am getting a kick out of all the descriptions of events thirty years ago. Any description of sexual activity, from flirting to coitus can be made to sound disgusting. A wink become a leer. A frank description of anything else easily sounds gross. The legal standard for a sexual assault case requires outcry. If you wait twenty years, the case is weak. The willful conflation of forceful and forcible is further muddying the waters. A forceful seduction is an indispensable detail of an bodice-ripper romance ... and they always end happily ever after. That doesn't mean that Moore wasn't a swarmy guy instead of swarthy Lothario. Rhadow (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * forceful seduction is an indispensable detail of an bodice-ripper romance Being okay in fiction != being okay in reality.
 * Anyways, the wapo story calls it "unwanted overtures" and not assault so it shouldn't be in the assault section. Galobtter (talkó tuó  mió) 04:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Guardian calls it sexual assault. -- irn (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Other sources are calling it "sexual misconduct" or "sexual harassment" though. I think a separate section for misconduct, and another for "romantic" (actually just cut that) relationships with minors and a 4th for other behaviour is the best way to do it (with this in the misconduct section I reckon). Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If we had videos of events and could read the minds of victim and perpetrator, there would still be debates about the correct word to use. If we’re going to try to classify each allegation, I think we’d be better off using classifications with broader definitions to retain our own sanity – except in those cases where RS have settled upon a classification. O3000 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. There definitely needs to be some separation between assault allegations and relationship with minors allegations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dividing lines are helpful but they also cause problems figuring out when a line is crossed, so I favor having just one dividing line, whatever it may be.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that if dividing lines were crossed, why wasn't it mentioned 30 yrs. ago? And Gibson, one of the accusers described her relationship with Moore: "She remembers reading the inscription and writing below it: “Roy Moore inspires me because he is such a successful man himself. Also, he is about the only person I know of who seriously believes in me. I appreciate that. He’s got to be one of the nicest people I know.” Read the article in WaPo dated Dec 4 by Stephanie McCrummen - provided the url as a link. Her interview sounds more like someone who was jilted or jealous that she wasn't the only one he showed attention. She was not underage, she was of consensual age - many young women were married at that age with parental consent back then. The article continues..."As Gibson previously told The Post, she said that she and Moore dated for a couple of months. She said he kissed her by the swimming pool concession stand at a local country club, that he played his guitar and read his own poetry to her, and that things ended when she went off to college in another part of Alabama, though they still kept in touch." Uhm, sorry, but that isn't assault and it wasn't impropriety at the time, either. MSM has sensationalized so much that it's hard to tell real from sensationalist hype for bait & click $$. Atsme 📞📧 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Related Profile
Some relavent reporting here about his behavior: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/us/roy-moore-alabama.html Casprings (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Russell Moore versus Prominent Christians Defending Moore (Correcting for Undue?)
The inclusion of the Russell Moore position in a prominent text box of its own under "Moore and his campaign" is first of all out of place, since Russell Moore is not part of Roy Moore's campaign. So at the very least it should be moved.

However, I also find it concerning that the article talks about a prominent Christian calling on Christians to oppose Moore, without any mention of the Christians, including even more prominent ones like Franklin Graham (see first article linked below), who have come to Moore's defense. I believe this is undue.

I propose that we either remove reference to Russell Moore (or at the very least take it out of its prominent place in a text box with image), or we add something like the following:

On the other hand some Christians have come forward in Moore's defense. For instance, a group of leaders of various religious groups issued a letter stating, "We stand with Judge Roy Moore, a man of integrity who has never wavered from his valiant defense of the unborn, the Ten Commandments, and the Constitution. We are confident the voters of Alabama will not be fooled by suspiciously timed accusations without evidence and will reject the politics of personal destruction led by the Washington Post."

See: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article185452903.html and http://www.wtvy.com/content/news/Pro-family-leaders-will-stand-with-Judge-Roy-Moore-at-Birmingham-Press-Conference-458021673.html

There's also the question of whether to make "responses by religious leaders" another subsection under reactions. That would give room for both Russell Moore and those defending Roy Moore. Largest Cardinal (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have created a subsection for religious responses, so this issue should be resolved. Neutralitytalk 21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Allred
This BLP currently says this:

I restored the second sentence today, because it properly balances the first. Both sentences are relevant, the first presents info seemingly supportive of Nelson, and the second presents info seemingly adverse to Nelson. That’s what WP:NPOV is all about. We shouldn’t just characterize all info adverse to the accusers as poisoning the well and flush it down the memory hole (note that “poisoning the well” means presenting irrelevant information, not relevant information).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOV is decidedly not about balancing supportive information with adverse information. If it were, we wouldn't have UNDUE or FRINGE. NPOV is significantly more complicated than that. In this case, the second sentence is, in fact, irrelevant because Allred can only possibly confirm if it's a forgery; if it's not a forgery, she has no way to be certain of its authenticity. (She wasn't there when the yearbook was signed, so she can only attest to what she believes, which is what her client tells her.) Presenting that information as if it somehow "balances" the previous information is misleading. -- irn (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

List of "Allegations of other inappropriate or unwanted behavior"
WP:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection or excessive listings of news WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RSBREAKING. But most crucially Neutrality must be held in the mainspace by fairly balancing the written text WP:WEIGHT and that opinions are no stated as facts WP:YESPOV. The alleged behaviour list is WP:SOAP and opinion pieces concerning current affairs and politics, that may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Also note WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Most importantly this listing is not in congruence with Wikipedia's policies:
 * WP:NPOV (policy): Neutral point of view, by selectively presenting one point of view from a source that actually includes two or more that conflict with each other
 * WP:UNDUE (policy): Not giving undue weight to a view, by omitting information that shows that it is relatively unimportant
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Ex. excessive listings of gossip and news


 * Best wishes from the friends of the "Five pillars", ReinoLeino (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Section is well sourced with WP: RS. Do not delete whole actions without discussion.Casprings (talk)|

Criminal or not?
I'm a retired child protection investigator and former guardian ad litem. In my opinion, the description of events by the then-14-year-old is absolutely believable and would have been a cause for criminal indictment had it been revealed and prosecuted in a timely fashion. She described going to his home a second time, him then laying out blankets on the living room floor, him taking off her clothes, save for her bra and panties, leaving then returning to the room wearing nothing but his underwear. She said that he touched her breasts and pubic area, over her undergarments, and tried to get her to touch his genitals by bringing her hand to them, though she pulled her hand away and he then took her home at her request. Just the alleged act itself of bringing her into his home for the alleged behavior would have been a felonious violation of the then-current statutes.. She informed others of the relationship and the assault, fairly contemporaneously. The second assault that would have been prosecutable was when he allegedly had the 15 or 16-year-old in his car and forced her head into his lap. Whether his scrambling defense attorney might blame that testimony on space aliens or some satanic plot by the "fake news" is irrelevant. I don't think that Wikipedia needs to dignify his ludicrous claims by giving such "details," "equal space." There was an early allegation that the Hickory House restaurant had not even existed. Simply noting that his attorney denied the charges, without going into the details, save for the alleged yearbook forgery, should be sufficient. The Post only investigated this story because while covering the campaign, it had unintentionally been made aware of and tangentially received reports about his inappropriate behavior when he was in his early 30's and it diligently pursued those leads. The paper exercised considerable scrupulously professional care in pursuing the stories. His approaches to many other teens and young women provide useful context. That said, some media have characterized Moore's behavior as pedophilia. No reports of which I am aware would justify that label, which refers to sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent child. That would generally refer to a child 13 or younger. I was surprised to even have seen an interview with a female Washington Post writer calling what he is alleged to have done, back then, "pederasty," which is clearly a misnomer. Activist (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Several have called this pedophilia, which is clearly inappropriate. As for legality, not for us to determine. Thanks for the background. Of course, much of it is WP:OR. O3000 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I avoided copious footnotes that can be found in the article. I wasn't sure how to add a footnote about the statute which criminalized a child being "lured" into a home, for illegal purposes, but I've added that reference to my comments. Activist (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that’s up to secondary sources, not us. H. L. Mencken said: "A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." Fortunately, we get to lean on sources instead of judging ourselves. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP is not a soapbox for activists and we’re not the courtroom of public opinion wherein the accused is charged, tried and convicted. Allegations are still allegations - read BLP - we must strictly adhere to US laws which means a person is considered innocent until proven guilty - due process - we do not edit articles assuming anyone is guilty until they are proven guilty in a court of law. Also keep in mind that BLP policy applies anywhere on WP. Atsme 📞📧 09:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

INFOBOX
Is there an info box that works for articles like this?Casprings (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede paragraphs
SHouldn't the lede paragraphs have more sourcing? There's only one cite in the first three paragraphs. Txantimedia (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede should reflect the body which should be, and is, well sourced. Artw (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Txantimedia (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Various defenses and problems with those defenses
The Sham Defence of Roy Moore - Possibly useful: good link dump from Slate on various defenses of Roy Moore, including some that some editors very much want to include here, and also the problems with those defences, which probably should be mentioned also. Artw (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The one defense that seems to be sticking is what was said by Rhonda Ledbetter to Moore's campaign. It's at this link (which is sub to the Slate article shown above)   ...but reported much less ecstatically here:   I noticed that the 11/20 press release by Moore preceded Trump's endorsement by just one day, and it went largely unrebutted in its major claims, from what I can tell.  208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding pictures
Why are we adding pictures of other people to this article? And if we're going to do this, should we have two pictures? One of a critic and one of a supporter? Or does NPOV not apply at all to this article? Txantimedia (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you have a point. OTOH, there is nothing unusual about folks supporting candidates in their own party. But, having the Speaker of the House asking a candidate from his own party to withdraw shortly before an election is highly unusual. O3000 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That justifies putting it in the story. Does it justify putting the picture up? Txantimedia (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the web. Like it or not, people love images. O3000 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Project Veritas
Somebody added a WaPo report that Project Veritas had attempted a sting operation whereby a woman would make a false claim against Moore. I'm dubious about including this. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion at But, I'm not comfortable with adding it here. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Should be included. The coverage is growing and it's all over the place now. Also, come on, shouldn't info about somebody upholding journalistic ethics (as well as just plain ol' ethics) be included?  Volunteer Marek   05:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point we don't even know if it was Project Veritas. The Post story says But it said the woman, who was interviewed several times over two weeks, was seen entering the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization which targets mainstream media organizations. The story does not confirm that she is an employee or even an agent of PJ. She could have been shopping the same story to PJ that she shopped to WaPO. Furthermore, the Post's characterization of PJ is too limited. If they target media organizations, how do you explain their stories on Planned Parenthood, voting irregularities, Project Acorn and other stings they have done? Definitely does not belong here until more evidence is adduced. Txantimedia (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not she was associated with PV, if the conspiracy sites push this story hard enough, we may have no choice but to add a very brief mention in some manner. But, not now. O3000 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. And for that reason, and the fact that the header itself alleged things not supported by RS, I removed the section. Txantimedia (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do know it was PV. She walked into their building. She posted about it on the internet. O'Keefe released some of the videos she recorded. So yeah, it was PV. What you meant to say is "O'Keefe hasn't explicitly confirmed that it was them". Anyway, we can obviously word it to make it clear that O'Keefe hasn't confirmed it was PV.  Volunteer Marek   05:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that she walked into the PV offices is not proof she works for PV. Unless you think every person who passes through their doors is an employee. Txantimedia (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * and I guess the "mere fact" that she posted about getting a job "combating liberal media" right before she came to WaPo isn't proof either. And the "mere fact" that O'Keefe posted videos of WaPo employees discussing stuff (sorry, nothing salacious in'em) soon after being asked if she worked for PV isn't proof either. I mean, come on! You ignored 2/3 of the comment and tried to Wikilawyer the first 1/3. Am I like suppose to suspend my disbelief here and take this seriously?  Volunteer Marek   05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not seeing any reason why it wouldn't be worthy of mention, TBH. Especially in light of Breitbart calls for just this sort of thing. 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons. It's tangential to this article, unless the campaign is somehow implicated. The story is not well developed yet. There is no confirmation that the woman involved is attached to Project Veritas in any way, and it's sensationalism to implicate Moore in it in any way without a single RS stating his campaign was involved. As you know, it's being addressed at Project Veritas, which is the appropriate place for it. Txantimedia (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very much NOT tangential. "Unless the campaign is somehow implicated" might be an argument for not including it in the Alabama Special Election article, but it won't fly here, where it's *exactly* on topic. The story is actually very well developed, simply because WaPo did their homework, dotted their i's, crossed their t's and checked everything backwards and forwards. There's definitely plenty here. There is confirmation that she's with PV, just not confirmation from PV itself (and why does this matter?). Nobody's talking about implicating Moore at this point so please leave that poor strawman alone, he's suffered enough already. Sure, it belongs in the PV article. It also sure as hell belongs here.  Volunteer Marek   05:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Attempts to defend Ron Moore, by deceit or other means, are absolutely relevant to this article. I cannot aw any chain of logic where they wouldn't be. Artw (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So the article should contain information about every crank that tries to insert themselves into the controversy? The article is about the allegations against Moore, not about attempts by others to insert themselves into the story. Furthermore, at this point, we don't know who is involved or what their intentions were. Does your logic still tell you it's relevant? If so, then see if you can obtain a consensus to insert it. Otherwise, it should stay out. But assumptions (assuming it's attempt to defend Moore without evidence from RS) need to stay out of it. Txantimedia (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "So the article should contain information about every crank" - man, seriously, you're gonna soon be guilty of first degree murder on that poor strawman (so far you're at like third degree assault). No, the article should not contain information about every crank etc. etc. etc. and no one here has suggested that it should. However, the article SHOULD contain information about cranks and non-cranks who insert themselves into the controversy and who's actions are widely covered by reliable sources. This is pretty straight forward and common sense, really not much to discuss here.  Volunteer Marek   05:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems a little off to characterize the Washington Post as "cranks", especially since they broke the Ron Moore story. I am inclined to disregard your line of argument. Artw (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? I was referring to the woman who tried to dupe them. There have been others as well. Txantimedia (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually reading the source may help you their. Anyway, clearly this merits inclusion and the arguments against are disengenuous. Artw (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think right after the story broke there was perhaps some justification for being cautious, but now that's it's been picked up by so many reliable sources, this is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (with a lot of strawman thrown in). Here's some, , , , , , , , , , , ... you want me to keep going (Txantimedia)?  Volunteer Marek   05:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to include information from innuendo simply because RS is saying "it was probably them", then what's the point of having any rules at all? Just turn the article into a Roy Moore hit piece and be done with it. At this point, I think we need to vote on including or excluding the information. Txantimedia (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, this isn't "innuendo". Sources are slyly insinuating it was PV, they're outright saying it was PV. Second, the point of having rules at all is that we follow them. And the rule here is WP:RS and WP:V. Which is precisely why we should include this. You're the one who's advocating not following the rules, then you come here and say "what's the point of having rules?" Well, the point of the rules is that we don't just do something because some random editor on Wikipedia feels a certain way.  Volunteer Marek   13:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose' Not one RS source has provided any evidence that Project Veritas is involved in this stunt, other than the fact that the woman entered their offices. No one has reported WHY she entered their offices. All the sources provided so far speculate that she is an employee without any evidence. So much for journalistic standards. This story needs to wait for confirmation. Txantimedia (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as this article goes, I don’t know that it matters whether or not it was PV. The reasons I was hesitant were recentism and the fact that there is no indication that the Moore campaign had anything to do with this. However, the story is spreading and this is not the Roy Moore article. It was a Roy Moore sexual abuse allegation, the title of this article. I still think that if it is mentioned here, that the mention be brief with the details elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/27/james-okeefe-tweeted-about-his-confrontation-with-a-post-reporter-heres-what-really-happened/ James O’Keefe tweeted about his ‘confrontation’ with a Post reporter. Here’s what really happened.] - a follow up of sorts. Artw (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this should be included on this page and James O’Keefe page, but not in Roy Moore page, at least on this point. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has become very clear to me that the editors of this article could care less about Wikipedia policy and rules. When you write was a part of an undercover sting operation organized by Project Veritas, you clearly do not care about truth or even accuracy. The Washington Post article cited for this phrase does not say what this phrase says. It says "appears to be". There is a reason that WaPo uses those words. Because they have not yet confirmed that the woman in question works for PV. I refuse to be associated with a sham article that purports to be encyclopedic but in fact has turned into a gossip rag. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. I will no longer participate in editing this article, since the cooler heads appear to be unable to prevail against the partisans. Txantimedia (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but I think you could have communicated your point somewhat less impolitely. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my personal choice would be not include this at all and wait for a few days. But it is very difficult to argue against inclusion when this is something obviously important and described already in so many RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the section to "False Allegations and Project Veritas" but I think it has a better title. What about "The Washington Post and Allegedly False Allegations"? I also tried to clean up the sentences a bit. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unclear to me which allegations the title refers to as falsely alleged? Artw (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I initially opposed including this because I thought it was a trivial, WaPo-only story. But now I see that the story has been picked and reported widely - in a quick search I find the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, Politico, etc. If we need to tweak the wording about whether it is confirmed to have been PV or simply suggested, we could - for example, we could leave PV out of the section title. Mathmith7 suggests we change the title and I agree. I'll think about that for a minute. BTW I reduced it from a level 2 section heading to a level 3. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have retitled it "Attempt to plant false report in the Washington Post" and I rewrote the paragraph - for clarity, better flow, and to avoid stating in Wikipedia's voice that the woman was a conservative activist (we don't know that) or that PV was definitely behind it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not well thought out. The basic premise is that "A woman lied about being raped and impregnated by Roy Moore."  The next step is attributing motivation which is not associated with Moore.  Turning to make it reflect poorly on Moore is therefore a false light BLP violation.  Keeping it as if a woman was lying about being raped by Moore to advance her personal agenda is a grave disservice to the other women that have come forward.  The target of this woman was apparently WaPo and she could have pretended to be anyones victim.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So long as we state it was WaPo’s conclusion (not ours) that this episode was an attempt to weaken WaPo’s credibility, I think we’re fine. And, I don’t think this is a disservice to the other women. I think it aides them by demonstrating the due diligence WaPo performs before printing reports of this type. O3000 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I support including this material recently removed in its entirety. It is very relevant to the subject of the article. The sourcing, and the fact that this article is not a BLP, means that the material is not a WP:BLP violation.- MrX 12:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Include: WP:RS’s connect it. This was an effort to discredit the women by making up a sexual assault. Ver relavent.Casprings (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect and unsupportable. No one has suggested a motive.  They report that she lied about being raped Moore.  Whether it was an attempt to discredit Moore, discredit the WaPo or discredit the other wome or all three or none of the above has not been established.  FWIW, the timeline of how previous Project Veritas stings would extend beyond the election and therefore not help Moore or discredit his accusers.  There are undoubtedley more stings in the works.  The PV MO has always been to do multiple stings, release a first bombshell, wait for the target to respond, the dribble out the rest in rebuttal.  ACORN was destroyed this way.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of WP:OR here. I was originally uncomfortable with include. But, you’re adding to my comfort for inclusion. I’m OK with inclusion of the facts in a neutral manner. The reader can make of it what they wish. Let us work on how to include. O3000 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And the problem is that the scope of this article is claims against Moore. By including a false rape accusation, we are essentially saying it is noteworthy to Moore to show that a woman was willing to lie about rape.  Slippery slope to say she did it for political reasons as we are very scrupulous about not attributing motive for coming forward, rather we stick to just credibility.  All the details regarding Project Veritas, or employment, etc, don't speak to credibility just as we don't list potential benefits or politics of other accusers.  Since this event is largely independent of Moore, it is a disservice to include it precisely because it raises the specter that there are false claims against Moore with political motivations.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this change by DHeyward both because it removed pertinent info for no reason and because it introduced the text that the woman claimed she was raped. AFAIK J.P. never made a that claim.  Volunteer Marek  03:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also changed the section title to "Attempt to plant false report in the Washington Post". Having the title as "Fabricated story by so and so" makes it seem like there was some woman who falsely accused Moore of something. But the actual story here is that PV and this woman purposefully tried to trick WaPo into printing a false story. Previous wording is written in a way to mislead readers into thinking that the allegations against Moore are false. The truth is that PV and his organization are actually trying to discredit the most likely true, corroborated stories, by trying to mix them up with false ones. NPOV requires strict accuracy here.  Volunteer Marek  03:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This laughably the most ridiculous statement that highlights why this whole thing doesn't belong here. The article is "Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations."  Yet you state that this isn't about an allegation leveled at Moore.  Either it is about the allegation or it doesn't belong here.  This article is not a coatrack for random claims of wrongdoing by organizations unaffiliated with Roy Moore or allegations that don't accuse Moore of sexual abuse.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, where sources matter. The sources disagree with you therefore you opinion is irrelevant. Artw (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DHeyward You appear to be in violation of 1RR. Artw (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Didn't the woman in question purposefully lie about being abused by Moore? This was a false flag operation intended to undercut the veracity of Moore's actual accusers, it is IMO quite topical to this article. ValarianB (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever it was, it was published in multiple RS, relevant to the subject and obviously important. Therefore, the inclusion here is obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Published in multiple sources which all say 'according to the Washington Post', therefore they are merely mimicking what WaPo said about itself. If its going to stay up it needs more sources other than just the WaPo ones currently used.--MONGO 07:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since PV targeted the Washington Post, OF COURSE all the other stories are going to reference it. What are they suppose to say? "According to a source we will not mention to make MONGO on Wikipedia happy"? This is a pretty lame excuse to try and remove it. It's staying.  Volunteer Marek   07:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the whole section is about the what happened with the Washington Post, we should add more sources than just the Post. They are a primary source in this situation. Looks like we should cover this here and there are sources on it. I am just not sure the best way to add them. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Soft oppose – She never went public with the "allegation" after she backed off, and all we have are off-the-record conversations with WaPo reporters. The focus here seems to be on her attempt to trick WaPo reporters into saying something bad about Roy Moore to expose their "bias" and maybe run the story. Maybe this would fit better as a mention in the reaction section? FallingGravity 08:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Somethin' ain't right heah - Inconsistencies of the Accusers
After the encounter with Moore (February 1979), Corfman claimed that "her teenage life became increasingly reckless with drinking, drugs, boyfriends, and a suicide attempt when she was 16." (Washington Post article)

From court records- In February 1979 (age 14), Corfman is described as having "disciplinary and behavioral problems." In June 1980 (age 16), Corfman's behavior is described as "greatly improved." http://www.alreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Corfman-divorce.pdf

Anyone else see a contradiction? -Topcat777 02:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, Which is why it didn't make it into the article. Txantimedia (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:OR.  Volunteer Marek   05:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not original research. This and other inconsistencies have been pointed out by Moore's campaign and several news sites...except the Dear Olde MSM.  -Topcat777  14:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea what it is you're suggesting we change or why we would want to look at divorce papers. You need to make a suggestion based upon reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Beverly Nelson claimed to have voted for Trump in November 2016 ("She can't be lying! She voted for Trump!")... except an AlabamaVotes.gov site shows her voting status as "inactive." This is not original research. An element of the con-game is to persuade by deception. -Topcat777 15:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is textbook original research. And I don't care nor do I trust what ever "findings" you've cooked up yourself. I'm very much tempted to remove this whole section per WP:NOTAFORUM. You wanna go wild and make crazy speculations and crap? There's a whole internet out there for you. But not here.  Volunteer Marek   15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is NOT original research. -Topcat777 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, this kind of politically motivated speculation about Nelson's voting record or Corfman's divorce pretty much amounts to political smears (since it implies the women are lying). As such it violates WP:BLP. Last warning. Cut this crap out.  Volunteer Marek  15:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There could be mistakes on voting records. There could have been a suicide attempt after June 1980. Or if there was a suicide attempt before June 1980, maybe nobody knew about it. Anything could have happened. Or maybe some details from long ago are remembered wrongly, naturally the least likely thing to be remembered wrongly, if it happened, was the sexual assault. starship.paint ~  KO   01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Anything could have happened." - Yes, we can assume anything, but "drinking, drugs...and a suicide attempt" at 16 still doesn't match "greatly improved" at 16. Not even close.  The custody modification process went on for several months and was finalized in October 1980.-Topcat777  18:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It could have been "greatly improved" at 16 and 1 day old. It could have been a suicide attempt at 16 and 364 days old. It doesn't guarantee a contradiction. Furthermore it could have been a misreporting of "greatly improved" for whatever reason. starship.paint ~   KO   04:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to stop violating WP:BLP anytime now...  Volunteer Marek   18:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia police? -Topcat777 19:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The "inactive voter" part is described at Heavy.com: "According to the Alabama Secretary of State, being an 'inactive voter' means that they didn’t respond to a mailing requesting to update their information and are still eligible to vote as a normal voter." Since the mailing program started in January 2017, I don't think we can use it to draw conclusions about whether or not she voted in the 2016 election. See also: . FallingGravity 05:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Head-counting, there are 15 supports in comparison to 10 opposes. Whilst that shall essentially lead to a close-call, weighing of relative arguments leads to the evolution of a consensus to support the move. Whilst, the article does include allegations of assault which can be editorially viewed as the most important parts, they are subsets of a broad spectrum of mis-conduct, which have been well-covered too. Whilst sources use both of the terms abundantly, misconduct is the broadest term and easily allows for the inclusion of the current wide range of incidents. Some oppose arguments solely on the line of NOTCENSORED, watering down et al have been given very little weight for they don't counter the motion at all. OSE as a sole supp. argument has been dealt in a near-similar manner too. Thankfully, Winged Blades Godric  06:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations → Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations – Currently the article lists three "allegations of sexual assault" and eight "allegations of other inappropriate or unwanted behavior". The article's title should reflect the scope of all or most of these allegations, so I think "sexual misconduct" would fit best for both the allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate behavior. Feel free to support, oppose, or propose a different title if desired. FallingGravity 05:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose the assaults are clearly the most significant part of the alleged pattern of predatory behaviour. Artw (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per discussion above and common sense. The title reflects the most noteworthy aspect of the topic not ... I don't know some "average" or something. If somebody gets charged with murder and five jaywalking tickets, we're not gonna have an article title Mr XYZ jaywalking controversy just because there are more charges of jaywalking than murder. This is sorta basic.  Volunteer Marek   05:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The assaults are the most notable element. Per above.Casprings (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as per Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. "Misconduct" is a much better description of the situation. We may think the two or three allegations of assault are the most important, but if that's the case, why are we including all the others? As with Clinton and Trump, the allegations cover a wide spectrum - not just actual abuse, i.e., unwanted physical contact, but also other things like unwanted or persistent approaches, harassment, consensual and legal but possibly unethical sexual relations (see Monica Lewinsky), etc. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Mel and precedent. All abuse is misconduct, not all misconduct is abuse, so use the most inclusive phrasing. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Based on Google searches, the most commonly used wording is "assault" and "misconduct" followed by "abuse". However, this is basically a current event, and it would be best wait until certain name will be established by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support MelanieN makes strong points on similar past articles and the distinction between abuse and misconduct. Which makes it fit the scope of the article better. PackMecEng (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The narrower the term, the more arguments about whether a specific incident deserves inclusion. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support to match the style of other sexual misconduct allegations pages. Additionally, misconduct is the broadest net for the range of allegations, all of which are worth noting. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which ones? And your argument is circular. Why not "to match the style of other sexual abuse allegations pages"? Like Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations.  Volunteer Marek   01:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there 18 allegations of rape against Roy Moore?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there are two (or three) allegations of sexual assault against Roy Moore. Oh, but I forgot. According to DHeyward and apparently some others here, that's "only three" (sic).  Volunteer Marek   03:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which are the two? If one is Corfman, the reporting does not support "assault" as what is reported as happening on what Corfman calls their "second date" has happened on second dates all over the country without being called "assault".  Point to the WaPo language that supports your claim.  If one is the 1991 butt grab allegation, why aren't you over at Al Franken's articles demanding "assault" language be used if your issue is getting the factual description right as opposed to some other issue?  If you're going to say, fine, we've still got Gloria Allred's client well then we don't have allegations of assault PLURAL do we?  By the way, Bill Clinton has been accused of rape.  Where's retitling "Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations" on your priority list?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And those 3 are the only ones alleging sexual contact at all. Why would you think we can call of the misconduct "sexual abuse" when only three allege sexual abuse?  --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Reliable sources use both "sexual misconduct" and "sexual abuse". Technically, either is acceptable for our purposes, but since some of the allegations involve children, "sexual abuse" is more informative and serves to distinguish this article from articles involving sexual misconduct with age-appropriate adults.- MrX 18:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:TITLE which is Wikipedia policy, “Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.” A title that only describes some of the allegations is too precise.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Present title is more informative and describes the most notable element of the allegations most closely. --RevivesDarks (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Given that at least three of the allegations are for actual assault (not just "abuse" or "misconduct") "abuse" appears to be the mildest term that covers the allegations. (See Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations.) -- Softlavender (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe those are the only three that allege any type of sexual contact. The others are about his pursuit of young woman that have denied that anything sexual occurred. The objection was that the romantic interest he expressed made them uncomfortable given his age and job.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "only three" - what the hell does that mean? Like if five were assaulted then it'd be ok to say "assaulted" but "only three" is not enough? Or is that still not enough? Eight? How many women do you have to assault before we're allowed to name an article with an accurate name? Wtf? I'd seriously consider striking that statement Heyward cuz it makes you look very bad.  Volunteer Marek   03:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, only three of the accounts were sexual. We have listed many more than those three in the article.  Are you going to delete everything but the 3 accounts that are sexual or rename the title? It's not a COATRACK of "things VM doesn't like about Roy Moore." --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, "only three". Including a 14 year old. So what if there are other, lesser allegations as well? Like I said above, if someone commits murder, but also gets charged with 11 counts of jaywalking, we don't name the article "Jaywalking allegations". That's not coatrack. That's accuracy.  Volunteer Marek   04:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You could go on as long as you want about how you might think that Juanita Broaddrick's allegation against Bill Clinton ought to be the most well known, highest profile, etc etc because it's the most serious. But that would just be you talking not Wikipedia as what Wikipedia does is cover in proportion to the way RS covers.  Which is to say, if Broaddrick's allegation generally gets treated as "yet another" allegation against Clinton, then Wikipedia takes the same approach.  Wikipedia follows as opposed to leads or pushes the coverage unless a Wikipedian or Wikipedians has an article push an agenda.  You want this to be all about Gloria Allred's client (if your efforts to exaggerate the violence of the other allegations can't be supported).  Then show us that Nelson's allegation against Moore is highest profile and because of its gravity as opposed to controversy about its accuracy.  I don't think it is: it's the Washington Post's reporting (and I mean direct reporting, not third party repeating of others' original reporting) that's caused the single biggest splash and when looking at the reporting of all allegations in the aggregate, I don't think Nelson's allegations are at all close to constituting the majority of the coverage.  Again, the challenges to Nelson's account that have appeared in the media obviously ought to be excluded from any count that is being used to argue in favour of titling this article "abuse" or "assault".--Brian Dell (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as "misconduct" is more consistent with the Washington Post story titled "initiated sexual encounter" which is the highest profile and most reliably sourced story. "forced", "assaulted", "abused" etc don't appear in that story.  It's telling that efforts to discredit the allegations against Moore have been focused on trying to undermine the Post's reporting as opposed to that of others.  I know this article claims that Leigh Corfman was assaulted but the source does not support that characterization.  This article also claims that Tina Johnson was assaulted yet Al Franken has also been accused of buttocks grabbing and that's described as misconduct, not assault.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no. . "Beverly Young Nelson accused Senate candidate Roy Moore of sexually assaulting her", "eight women have come forward to describe questionable behavior or to allege sexual assault by Roy Moore". "Nelson alleges that he instead drove behind the restaurant and assaulted her".  Volunteer Marek   03:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. Nelson's allegations were NOT reported by the Washington Post.  The Post is in the same position we are with the respect to the Nelson's allegations, which means we report them as assault while doing so in appropriate proportion.  At issue here is whether this one isolated undisputed (if true, again this is NOT sourced to the Post and indeed is at odds with what the Post reported when the Post reported that several said Moore took no for an answer) assault claim means we should title this article "sexual abuse [or assault] allegations".--Brian Dell (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? 1) Nelson's allegations *were* reported by the Post. What are you talking about? 2) You know that if you say "undisputed" and then immediately qualify it with "if true" you're not making much sense 3) There's no "at odds" with what the Post reported. Again, what are you talking about? 4) It is sourced to the Post and can be easily sourced to other sources. Are you seriously disputing that this allegation was made? 5) Calling this "one isolated claim" is ridiculous. It's sexual assault.  Volunteer Marek   02:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They were reported by the Post the way Wikipedia reports. I.e. second hand.  Nelson's allegations, in other words, could be just as "easily sourced" to us!  For our purposes here that's not a "report" any more than a newspaper carrying a Reuters wire story should be properly described as the reporter as opposed to Reuters. Do you have evidence that the Post's reporters had any contact with Nelson (or even Allred) at all?  At issue here is your pretending that the WaPo editors decided to run the Nelson story and accordingly put their credibility behind it like they did the Alford allegation.  Ask yourself if WaPo's reputation would suffer if Nelson's allegations prove to be totally manufactured.  The answer to that question is no, certainly not anything like if Alford's story proved to be totally concocted. What's "undisputed" is that what Nelson described was assault, and this is the only allegation for which it's indisputable that that would indeed be a more accurate description than misconduct.  Whether Nelson's allegation is as credible as that of the women whom the Post's reporters dealt with is another question.  If you've got more than one isolated claim of sexual assault then where's the other one?  I've already asked you this question and you've dodged.  The Post reports "None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact."  Does that sound like the modus operandi of Harvey Weinstein, the guy you insist is Moore's equivalent?  Why is Weinstein the comparative here and not Franken when objectively when Nelson's claims are excluded you've got levels of aggression in Moore's case that are more comparable to Franken than to Weinstein?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support reading the accounts show that two of the allegations are sexually abusive. As far I can tell the remainder have said there was no sexual contact of any kind and certainly not sexual abuse. I'd prefer simply "misconduct allegations" if we are includin the majority of complaints that expressed discomfort in his interest in young woman 10-15 years younger than he was.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – As noted, sources use various qualifiers for the accusations, so that both descriptive titles can be well-supported by a body of sources. In line with several similar articles, "sexual misconduct allegations" is the broadest term, allowing inclusion of all reported incidents; "sexual abuse allegations" would restrict our scope to the 2-3 most serious cases, which would harm the article's completeness. Showing Moore's pattern of behaviour is more informative to our readers, and is consistent with mainstream RS treatment. Also, the present title may be construed as a WP:POVTITLE. — JFG talk 16:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of sources and coverage seem to focus primarily on "sexual abuse" or "sexual assault", with the other sexual misconduct allegations being brought up to support and provide context for those rather than as the primary focus.  The comparison to other articles (which seems to be the main argument used by people pushing for the change) is irrelevant; they're different events, involving different stories, different people, different coverage, and different sources.  The suggestion that all articles about sexual allegations against politicians must use one set of terminology regardless of sourcing, purely because it was used in one or two other cases, is not a policy-based argument. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course Other stuff exists isn't an argument per se. But I don't think that any fair minded person can dispute that Roy Moore is less popular amongst the community of Wikipedia editors than those other politicians whose names have come up.  The question is what is being done, if anything, to guard against that bias.  I, for one, think Roy Moore is one of the worst politicians in America.  That doesn't mean I am not trying to actively put that sentiment aside when considering the question of whether it's more accurate to say he's been accused of sexual misconduct if we have to choose between just that or sexual assault/abuse.
 * It is indeed perfectly INvalid to engage in whataboutism to try and justify Moore's behaviour. The issue here is not whether there's any misconduct however but whether assault would be a more neutral description of the behaviour.  It is perfectly VALID to ask about other cases as part of an argument inviting people to consider what the consequences would be if the standard being called for were applied universally.  It's the difference between "Johnny stole from Jerry but he shouldn't be punished because Eddie did worse and got away with it" and "if you want to imprison Johnny for life are you willing to see that principle applied universally and if not then why is Johnny a special case?" When it comes to another Wikipedia article, the appropriate response is that that other article is wrong too and it being wrong doesn't make the article before us right.  But if one contends that there's no problem with the other article, one's reasoning can be legitimately challenged on the grounds that If you can't or won't universalize your standard there's a legitimate problem to your standard.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME refers to articles which use a topic's name as the article title (such as Bill Clinton, Bono and The Hague). This article isn't using a common name.  Instead, it's using a descriptive title such as Climatic Research Unit email controversy.  Simply put, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME applies to events as well; and in this case a quick search shows that this event has an overwhelmingly common name, which policy requires that we use.  Even when a title involves description, it must still abide by WP:COMMONNAME (even if people feel it's non-neutral) in the terms that that description uses.  As WP:NDESC says:  However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)  In other words, WP:NDESC is entirely subordinate to WP:COMMONNAME as a policy, and applies only to parts of the name that we invent whole-cloth, not parts that are directly taken from the sources.  Because sources overwhlemingly use the term "sexual abuse" as a broad descriptor for the topic, we are required to do so even in a description, and would be violationg WP:NPOV to drop it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's true that "sources overwhlemingly use the term "sexual abuse'" here, certainly not so overwhelming as to mean we should set neutrality concerns aside as you seem to be saying.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME applies to events as well" Huh?  You're rebutting points I didn't make.  Of course WP:COMMONNAME can apply to events.  Watergate scandal is a prime example of an event that uses a common name.  Climatic Research Unit email controversy is an example of an event that uses a descriptive title.   This particular article is an example of one that uses a descriptive title.  Of course, you can use common names within a descriptive title.  The problem is that this article isn't using a common name as whole or in part.  No, descriptive titles are not a subsection of common name.  Where did you get that idea from? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The article covers more than just the sexual abuse allegations.  The article title should accurately reflect the article's topic.  Also, the current name mischaracterizes the article content to focus on the more salacious of the allegations which may make the current title a WP:BLP violation.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is never a BLP violation to go by what the sources say. From WP:BLP:  In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.  From WP:TITLE:  In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.  And from WP:NDESC:  However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)  Most of the comments here do not dispute that "sexual abuse" is the most common term for what happened; therefore, we're stuck with it.  Objections to it should be taken to the sources covering the topic rather than aired here - we're stuck with what they say until / unless they update their terminology.  --Aquillion (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already called attention to the WaPo story that's the highest profile, the story alleging the "initiation of a sexual encounter", to note that the terminology used by the source does NOT support "assault" (or abuse) as opposed to misconduct. One could plausibly argue for some sort of statutory assault or abuse but then the debate should be "statutory abuse" versus misconduct.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Aquillion: It's a WP:BLP violation to cherry-pick the more salacious allegations to misrepresent what this article is about. You just quoted a portion of BLP that has nothing to do with the argument I am making.  Where in BLP does it say it's OK to cherry-pick?  Then you quoted a part of WP:NDESC which has nothing to do with this article's title.  "Boston Massacre" is a proper noun; "sexual abuse" is not a proper noun.  Yes, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would is acceptable because it's a descriptive title that also uses a common name inside it.  But again, that example has nothing to do with this article's title.  You seem to be copying and pasting text without really understanding what the text is actually saying.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The article does cover textbook examples of sexual abuse, but covers a wider range of alleged misconduct as well.LM2000 (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Properly describes the scope of the article, and is consistent with similar topic articles. James (talk/contribs) 15:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Misconduct" seems much too light to describe the full scope of the allegations. Per WP:NOTCENSORED the more drastic allegations shouldn't be swept under the rug just because they weren't proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Zxcvbnm: I don't think that anyone has argued that the allegations should be censored or swept under the rug. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment- We could just move to "Roy Moore sexual abuse and misconduct allegations". O3000 (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as most sources describe the events as sexual assault, as noted by others in this discussion, "misconduct" is a watering down of the topic. ValarianB (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:TITLE and WP:SCOPE. Also, the most recent sources describe the allegations as "sexual misconduct": ABC News, news.com.au, The Atlantic, Bloomberg, Global News, New York Times, CNBC, Daily Telegraph. FallingGravity 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support but I must question the allegations. Are we talking about the allegations of the woman who, when age 14, claimed he took advantage of her short of intercourse? The reason I ask is because the other allegations were by "age of consent" young women (whom we see as "teenagers" today which may be misconstrued as an insult to some of our young adults) so what exactly are the allegations we're talking about? Are they societal issues judged by public opinion? Could it be that an older man should not be "courting" a teen of consensual age, or does it apply across the board in that older men in general should not be courting younger women? If so, how far back in time do we go? How about Elvis and Priscilla? Keep going because 30 to 40 years ago, we were facing a different society - different times. How about Loretta Lynn?  Better yet, what about Jerry Lee Lewis who married his 13 yo 2nd cousin? Today, such practices are scorned, and we now have laws in place to accommodate the workplace sexual abuse like what happened with Matt Lauer, Al Franken, John Conyers, and so on? Atsme 📞📧 23:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per consistency with the Clinton and Trump articles and NPOV titling. Also, he's not going to be criminally charged for anything at this point.  Montanabw (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Where are we at with this? Jenks24 (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ≈T minus 12 hours:) Winged Blades Godric 09:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yearbook
The article currently says:

I suggest we add this:

Thoughts?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a trick, suggestive question. The lawyer cannot know if it was a forgery. An honest lawyer must decline to answer. And, even if she could, the question should be do you know if it's real, not if it's a forgery. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited accordingly, see also this youtube video from earlier today at CNN.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don’t you do it this way. Because I’m doing it this way. Why don’t you do it this way. Because I’m doing it this way. Why don’t you do it this way. Because I’m doing it this way. Look, a lawyer gets to do what she thinks is best for her client. Period. O3000 (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Woman shares new evidence of relationship with Roy Moore when she was 17
Should be added: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html


 * Isn't Gibson the one that worked for the Democratic party? Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article?  -Topcat777  15:22, 05 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gibson, 54, now lives in Delray Beach, Fla., is a registered Republican, though she did give sign language interpretation help to the Clinton campaign. Don't think that's really important. Galobtter (pingó mió) 9:05 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)
 * "Gibson, 54...is a registered Republican." Uh-huh...except somebody saved several screenshots of Gibson's Facebook page (before she scrubbed it) which indicate something entirely different.  -Topcat777  17:06, 05 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for this? I quoted from the washington post, a reliable source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Closest I see is the Gateway Pundit and Breitbart. I don't know much about the Gateway Pundit and Breitbart might not be strong enough. PackMecEng (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why should her current political affiliation be mentioned? Is it related to the allegations? –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in the WaPo article. Almost all of the news articles tell us the party affiliation of the accuser - "a registered Republican"..."voted for Trump"...etc.  A key element of the con-game is to persuade by deception-  "She can't be lying. She voted for Trump."  But no one can prove how they voted. -Topcat777  15:20, 06 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did she say she voted for Trump, or are you confusing her with Trump supporter Beverly Young Nelson? FallingGravity 07:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posdibly the attempt to emphasize it should be mentioned under smear efforts? Artw (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
"On whether he had dated girls in their late teens when he was a 32-year old, Moore said, "If I did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything but I don't remember anything like that ... I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.""

The actual phrase was "woman as young as 17". So I suggest changing it to

"On whether he had dated women as young as 17 when he was a 32-year old, Moore said, "If I did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything but I don't remember anything like that ... I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother."" zzz (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I edited it down for concision to

"He said that he didn't remember "ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother."" zzz (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Poll
The lead of this BLP says, “Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore from the allegations.” But I’m not aware that this article says why they’ve defended him. It would be better if we explain that it’s not because they have an affinity for child molesters, or because they don’t care about such accusations, according to poll results. So, I suggest we include this:

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would want to see a couple of other sources to show that this poll is noteworthy. In our role of editors, we don't need to explain why Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore, unless it's something that is prominently covered by the best sources.- MrX 16:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I already cited CBS. Here’s Time Magazine.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you find any other sources. By the way, the sentence "Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore from the allegations." is referring to politicians, while the poll is referring to the electorate. We can't add your proposed sentence as an explanation for the existing sentence.- MrX 17:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ”Alabama Republicans” is not worded to refer to politicians only, and anyway I am not proposing any text for the lead. Please let me know how many thousands of reliable sources you would like before including the proposed material, thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support to define why they support him still, as it provides context that is otherwise lacking.--MONGO 16:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment That sentence is about Alabama republican politicians. So that does not really represent the why. The poll also seems a bit too much for the lead. Agree with MrX that we need more sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m not suggesting it for the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I originally wrote that sentence in the Roy Moore article. The idea was to compare the initial reactions of national Republican leaders with local Republican leaders in Alabama. Some things have changed since then, but I still think the differing initial reactions should be noted. FallingGravity 08:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Reject premise we should absolutely address why Republicans continue to support him, that poll doesn't really do that. Artw (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The why is because the Alabama persons polled do not believe the press in regards to the accusations. The source is more than adequate to provide context on this issue. Here's another source --MONGO 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that source from Time Magazine supplements the one from CBS News.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - It's an interesting poll. But, it's just one poll during a fast-moving story. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - it's about informing readers about some of the circumstances that surround the allegations and how Moore supporters responded to it. Atsme 📞📧 01:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It’s one poll result, this WP:UNDUE. What we need is significant WP:RS’s stating that Republican voters don’t believe the allegations. From there, we also need to include commentary for WHY they don’t, from WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A sampling of RS reporting on this phenomena: Time, Fox focuses on Republican leaders, CBS explains the phenomena, NY Magazine states: "Still, the most eye-popping statistic from the CBS poll is likely a reliable indicator..." While I understand in part the position of the oppose iVotes, our priority should be to publish the facts in a nonpartisan tone for our readers. The fact is that so many RS are writing about why the poll may be a reliable indicator so we should include what RS say. It's an historic event as crazy as it may seem. Atsme 📞📧 14:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional coverage of a poll is still one poll. We may possibly mention it, but we are not going to say in Wilipedias voice Wikipedia's voice that it is the sole indicator of what Moore's supporters believe, for a variety of very good reasons (unclearness of what exactly they are saying didn't happen, people often lie on polls, partisan show of support during an election, etc... etc...) - what Anythingyouwant is asking for based on this single poll is far too much. Artw (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure we can, simply as "according to a poll taken by..." You supported the Washington Post piece that was mirrored by other news agencies but not this?--MONGO 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read above statement.the one you replied to. Artw (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You wanted sources - here's a CNN report: - "The people of Alabama know that this was a hit job," Young said on CNN Monday night about the allegations of assault against underage girls. And here's WaPo's take on a completely different poll. Here's another for good measure which speaks to how the voters feel. Our PAGs say we include all views giving DUE where due. Atsme 📞📧 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth discussing outside of this dumb yes/no poll on very specific wording, yes. Artw (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It didn't take a gauntlet to add a coatrack of negative things but to get even a neutral non negative thing requires that this goes through several action committees?--MONGO 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwan's specific request is not actionable. Feel free to make other reuqests or changes. It;s not hard. Artw (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem adding it, as long as it's not in the lead or juxtaposed with "Alabama Republicans have largely defended Moore from the allegations.". There are enough sources to show that it meets WP:DUEWEIGHT. I happened to randomly read a source earlier today that mentioned it.- MrX 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Gena Richardson
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move the Gena Richardson section to the sexual assault section? I'm pretty sure a forced kiss (especially with tongue) qualifies as sexual assault.45.58.210.15 (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm of the mind that the names of victims shouldn't be published at all per single event. Atsme 📞📧 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh hell no. That way just leads to an awful mess of quibbling and circuitous language trying to quantify what number of people had what done to them. Also, they've come forwards and given their names, we should honor that. Artw (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. See above. -- irn (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we, as humans, tend to remember things not quite as they actually were 30 years ago. We also tend not to remember the societal changes over the years, and if we're younger than that, we can't possibly know what it was like, or what was acceptable before our time is not acceptable today. I'm not saying it was right but society did accept it, and the latter is a factual statement. It's hard to believe that women were considered chattel throughout history or that a marriage license was a license to own until the early 20th century or that women weren't allowed to have credit cards without a guarantor's signature. I know this isn't a forum, but we really do need to keep things in perspective because work-place sexual harassment as we know it today - the kind that Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Bill Clinton et al were accused of and apologized for took place in the work place where women feared for their jobs. Big difference from dating someone younger who is of consensual age. Atsme 📞📧 20:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t know what society you come from, but if you approach a teen salesgirl in a mall, ask her for her phone number, she refuses, and then you call her at her school and have her pulled out of class to the principal’s office to chit-chat, that’s just wrong. It was wrong 30 years ago and it’s wrong today. O3000 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any society in the US 30 years ago that a principal would be so stupid as to do such a thing. Our schools back then were more like Fort Knox and were far more disciplined than what we see today. And I walked miles in the snow just to get to school. Atsme 📞📧 20:59, December 6, 2017 (UTC)}}
 * I walked miles in the snow to get to my school also. If someone called my school, announced that he was the Assistant District Attorney and wanted to talk to a student, I think he could have been put through. My stock broker called me at high school a couple of times and got through when I was 15. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will gladly relent to you being older than me SMirC-chuckle.svg. Atsme 📞📧 21:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard Shelby (Alabama's senior Republican U.S. Senator) opposition
"Appearing on CNN, two days before the election, Richard Shelby, Alabama's U.S. Senator since 1987, said the accusations against Moore "are believable," continuing, "Alabama deserves better." A week earlier he revealed to the Washington Post that he had written in the name of another Republican on his absentee ballot."

Atsme just now reverted this text added by, with an edit summary of "UNDUE":. Yet the wiki article contains multiple assertions (including a quoted poll) that Alabama Republicans deny the claims and/or support Moore. If the senior Republican Alabama U.S. Senator (the highest-ranking Alabama Republican) believes and states the opposite, it is not UNDUE to state that; it would actually be POV/CENSOR not to mention that somewhere to counter the current multiple assertions of Alabama Republican near-unanimity on the subject. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Support for Inclusion The "Republican politicians and groups" section is a disaster, but the opinion of the other Senator from Alabama is definitely relevant for the existing version of that section. That said, I doubt anybody will care about this after Wednesday.  I also doubt it will matter tomorrow; if there were a specific write-in candidate he were supporting publicly, it would be more likely to be relevant. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for Exclusion - WP is NOTNEWS, or SOAPBOX or PROMOTION for/against a candidate up for election TOMORROW. Let's not lose sight of what WP is about. Atsme 📞📧 23:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support for including in article body but keep Shelby out of the lead. Why put Shelby in the lead if we exclude Alabama Governor Kay Ivey who endorsed Moore?  There’s a separate article about the election, and another article about Moore himself, so I support keeping all endorsements (for anyone) out of this lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Super Strong Support for Inclusion - Shelby's view as senior Republican from Alabama is highly noteworthy when discussing another person from Alabama running for the same office. Yes, it does not belong in the lead. It's silly to oppose this material over fears that adding it to the article will affect the election, nor is that our concern.- MrX 23:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ETA: Struck the part about it not being in the lead. I thought this was the main bio article.- MrX 23:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Moore allegedly contradicting himself about knowing the accusers
The lead says Moore contradicted himself about knowing the accusers, and the lead quotes Moore about this, but the quotes are out of context, and they snip out parts of sentences. Here’s the full quote:

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

BLF Violations, False & Defamatory Writing
I have deleted false and defamatory and inflated numbers content. There are only 3 women who have accused Roy Moore of criminal sexual assault. It is defamatory to add in women whom it is alleged he dated decently with no assault even alleged. It is defamatory to style a request for a date replied with a NO, as an unwanted sexual advance. The media is full of distortion on this. Only 2 of the accusers allege they were teenagers at the time. There are no collaborating witnesses aside from hearsay. Speaking about a legal age of consent in Alabama is very probably false, as this is a modern concept. At the time probably both fornication and adultery were crimes in Alabama; the idea of consenting adults being OK, is an anachronism. I know that fornication was a crime in the past because in my city in a southern state I was there to witness a man being tried for fornication. But there is no proof that Moore ever did fornication or adultery at any age. 14 was the legal age of marriage until about 2003 in Alabama. So it is false to posit that it was improper way back then to court a 14 year old by a 30s man, even if a suddenly discovered immorality for this is alleged. Whether you like it or not, it was not a crime then (or now) to take a teenager to a movie or to a restaurant so long as no indecent liberties are taken. Moreover, you will find lots of literature on how teenage girls like older men. There is no proof that Moore violated either law or Bible in his actions, though perhaps after the fact some current 2017 people may make up some rules on it (without proof that their rules are right). I have taken Some BLF violations out of the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC))


 * What is "BLF"? You appear to have made an editorializing and tendentious edit to the article lead section, and the phrase "Three and only three" now sticks out as a sore thumb now. Please acquaint yourself with the relevant policies on WP:NPOV. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the editorializing ("three and only three", "criminal" sexual assault) and the detailed description of the alleged behavior which does not belong in the lede sentence. I think what I replaced it with is accurate, neutral, and in line with previous consensus about what should be there. I'm happy to discuss it here but let's not make changes without discussing. PeacePeace, to correct some of your misstatements: the age of consent (read the article) does not refer just to marriage, it is the age at which someone is considered capable of consenting to sexual activity. The age of consent in Alabama was 16 at the time just as it is now. Nobody has alleged that Moore committed fornication or adultery. Reliable sources are not saying it was a crime, although at least some of the alleged behavior might have been illegal if true. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Anachronistic References to Age of Consent Should be deleted
If you will speak about "Age of Consent" in this article, you have the burden of evidence from reliable sources that such a legal concept existed then in Alabama Law. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Here is an internet quote on Alabama Law, which may have been changed by the 1970 (but I have not found that yet):


 * Section 4184 of the Code of Alabama provides that "if any man and woman live together in adultery or fornication, each of them must, on the first conviction of the offence, be fined not less than one hundred dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than six months. On the second conviction for the offence, with the same person, the offender must be fined not less than three hundred dollars, and may be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than twelve months; and for a third or any subsequent conviction with the same person, must be imprisoned in the penitentiary, or sentenced to hard labor for the county for two years."


 * You must realize how drastically the Zeitgeist has changed in the US since the olden days. Things thought wicked & to be punished by law, have been now deemed honorable. Things that would have got you a butt-whupping then, are now so yumsy wumsy sugar plumsy. Things which were honorable now are disdained. And how do you know which generation got it right? IMHO "Age of Consent" is a serious anachronism to bring into a discussion of behavior 40 years ago.  (PeacePeace (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC))

Age of consent is not an anachronism and is still in effect in most countries and all states, including Alabama. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by olden days. The age of consent in Alabama has been 16 for a century. In Alabama, a person 19 or older having sexual contact with a person of the opposite sex less than 16 and older than 12 commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree. There are zero states where age of consent in considered an anachronism. O3000 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's definitely an important detail, since the age of consent varies quite a bit from state to state (and country to country). It's especially important in this case because it makes any sexual overtures toward anyone under 16 a possible crime, not just creepy, as in the case with Leigh Corfman. (What is really odd, but a different matter, is that it's legal to marry at 14 in Alabama.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your proof that Age of Consent existed in 1974 in the context of sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Reference to Age of Consent must be deleted if there are not reliable sources to establish such a fact.  A law on statutory rape does not establish an Age of Consent. How can there be a Age of Consent when both fornication and adultery are illegal? So either add a citation as evidence that such existed in 1974 or delete the reference.  "Age of Consent" is a confusing term and should be deleted for that reason alone.  Since the age of marriage back in 1974 was 14 years, then 14 would be "Age of Consent."  And if it was legal to have sex outside of marriage, then that requires proof.  Also in the case of Roy Moore, the allegation does not concern sexual intercourse.  Were indecent liberties legal then if there was consent? Where is the proof? BTW "sexual overture = weasel words, since asking for a date is a "sexual overture" but such words in this context bring a negative connotation. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
 * I don't know what country you're from, but you are showing great ignorance of American language, laws, and customs. In that case "silence is golden". You say that "A law on statutory rape does not establish an Age of Consent." Actually the two concepts are dependent on each other. You cannot have one without the other. Statutory rape is sex with someone under the age of consent. The part about 14 years old is used, with the consent of the parents, for cases where the girl has gotten pregnant with a boy close to her own age and the parents don't file charges against the boy (who might even be younger than the girl...often is), but force them to get married. They try to make the best of a sad situation. At least that's how I understand it. Alabamians might have a better explanation. When young teenagers get involved in sexual experimentation things can go wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Olde Hickory House restaurant
Moore's wife has circulated a false story, claiming that the restaurant, where Beverly Young Nelson worked in 1977, did not exist until 2001. The story has been debunked, notably by two right-wing sources which would normally support Moore. That makes their testimony even more reliable, as carrying this story is not in their own interests. They are fringe sources we wouldn't normally consider very reliable, but in this instance I believe we should use at least one of them. Newsmax and The Daily Caller carry the debunking story. I'm not sure which source is better, but this should be included for balance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If the initial claim was only a fringe criticism that did not garner media attention, I'm not sure the rebuttal would be notable either. ValarianB (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Need some RS media attention on those stories. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that point. The problem is that these people habitually communicate their messages using extreme right-wing and fringe sources. If we ignore those sources, we fail to document all sides of their life and actions.
 * I think we can invoke WP:PARITY here: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources...." That allows using otherwise poor and fringe sources to document what is otherwise ignored by more mainstream sources. Failure to do so means we fail in our mission to document the "sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this isn't making sense. Your first post said that the rebuttal, which is only found in unreliable media, should be included for balance. I'm confused as to what it is that needs balancing, since the wife's false story is not mentioned in the article. ValarianB (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole section about Nelson...! There her claim to have worked at the Olde Hickory House is made, but we ignore the attempts to falsely say she was lying about that. This provides evidence that such attempts were made, and they were seen by thousands who still believe the lie. Facebook and Twitter are still full of Moore supporters who repeat this lie circulated by his wife. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So .. in the section about Nelson, you want to include a spurious claim that was not picked up by reliable media sources, and then "balance" that with the rebuttal, also not picked up by reliable media sources? ValarianB (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. A mainstream RS is required, and that was found. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like this should be included because one strategy used by Moore and his defenders is to just throw anything out there and see what sticks. If we don't include the easily-debunked claims that clearly don't stick, all we're left with is what does stick, and that leaves us with a warped depiction of events, unduly favorable to Moore. -- irn (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nancy and the bedroom phone
The Washington Post article mentions regarding Leigh:
 * She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom

November 12th, Aaron Klein of Breitbart claimed to have interviewed Leigh's mother Nancy and supplied this quote:
 * Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”
 * “No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

I don't really understand that last sentence. Could "get through to her" refer to perhaps a phone mounted in a hallway with a long cord so that the speaker could be stretched into a bedroom? I'd like to know if anyone knows of any other reporters having interviews with anyone regarding the location of this phone which Leigh purportedly spoke to Roy on. Is it mentioned anywhere outside the original WashPo article and Klein's article? Has anyone else besides Leigh and Nancy been reached for comment regarding the number of phones which existed in the house and where they were located?

I want to make sure I fully explore all possible sources here before adding anything regarding the phone. Presently the section mentions the claim that Moore asked for her phone number but doesn't follow up on this discussing the alleged phone calls even though WashPo does mention multiple calls.

Did the phone company have logs back then of who phoned who or is that more of a recent thing? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Any edit suggestion or concern that uses Breitbart as a springboard is dead on arrival. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart touching something doesn't make something untouchable VB. Particularly if the notability of something they highlighted is covered by a subsequent source. Regardless of opinions regarding the reliability of their purported interviews (although, has anyone accused Klein of faking the interview or concocting Nancy Wells' replies?) if it prompts a response from other news media, we should consider it. You can see for example that it prompted cross-ocean coverage in Britain the day after: We see similar coverage later in the month from other news sites about this bedroom phone issue:

What you can see here, after the Nov 22 quote from DuPre in the Cason article, that the Seale and Sullum articles are suddenly mentioing a "cord long enough" / "long cord" regarding a WashPo story, which appears to have been rushed out the same day as the DuPre was pushing the phone angle:

What remains unclear to me though, is whether Scherar is revealing NEW information not present in the initial Washington Post article (I could not see a mention by Leigh Corfman of a hallway phone with a long cord (check https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.d30b3abb6661 the word "cord" doesn't appear) or if Scherar is providing an interpretation of the Breitbart interview by Nancy Wells of "phone in the house could get through to her" which doesn't actually specify it was a "hall" phone. Hall was simply my guess, as you can see above, so it remains unclear if Scherar was also guessing as to the phone's location (or that "get through to her" meant via a stretched cord) or if he was revealing new information from the earlier interview Washington Post had not released, or if Washington Post contacted both Leigh Corfman and Nancy Wells for a followup interview to clarify the phone issue.

There doesn't appear to be any indicator that the hallway phone was HER (Leigh's) phone though, so Scherer has not actually contradicted Klein's statement that this was a contradiction of a detail in the story. At best this seems to be minimiing the importance, that it was not a "key" detail whose phone it was. The pronoun thing is interesting though. The article by Stephanie McCrummen, Beth Reinhard and Alice Crites definitely says "on her phone" rather than "on the phone" or "on their phone". That pronoun would suggest that in the interview that either Leigh had goofed by saying "my phone" or that whoever was paraphrasing her interview goofed.

This is not just a Breitbart issue, all the above stories show that both the Moore campaign/allies and the Moore opposition/critics have reacted to the telephone issue. Washington Post itself took enough notice to post a response to it, so we should not ignore the "her phone" / "phone with a long cord in the hallway" (PWALCITH) controversy which clearly existed in news media for the past month during the final rungs of voting. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Delbra Adams initials
Two lines presently in the Beverly Young Nelson section:
 * As evidence of her relationship with Moore, Nelson provided her high school yearbook, which included an entry by Moore, written about a week before[28] the alleged assault. Moore's entry states: "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Christmas 1977. Love, Roy Moore, D.A."
 * At a press conference in early December 2017, Nelson said that she added the words "D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House" below this entry in the yearbook.

This makes it sound like D.A. appeared twice, but when looking at the image, D.A. far as I can discern only appears once, and is to the right of 'Moore' rather than 'below' anything. Seems like the text is not representing that. Then there is:
 * Moore's only contact with the case was to have his assistant, Delbra Adams, stamp his signature on a motion to dismiss the case in August.

This image of the 1999 case appears to show that besides stamping the name, Delbra Adams also initialed it.

Aaron Klein of Breitbart published a November 17 article on Breitbart saying Breitbart had interviewed Adams and focuses on this:
 * Adams’ initials – D.A. – have become part of the story involving the allegations against Moore. Adams signed her initials alongside a stamp of Moore’s signature on the 1999 divorce document for Moore accuser Beverly Young Nelson.
 * Alongside Moore’s signature on Nelson’s divorce document is Adams’ initials. Adams explained it is normal procedure for a clerk to initial a stamped signature on a legal document to verify that the stamp is authentic.
 * The signature and Adams’ initials are relevant because Nelson has produced a 1977 yearbook which she says was signed by Moore at the time as “Roy Moore DA” and not just “Roy Moore.”
 * At the time, Moore was an assistant district attorney. “Roy Moore DA” was the way Nelson’s undisclosed divorce document was signed, with the “DA” initialized by Adams next to Moore’s stamped signature.

The focus appears to be on why "DA" would be used in a yearbook at the time Moore was an ADA. Would Nelson have written DA on it at a later date when he got an ADA>DA promotion? Reading the Roy Moore article I cannot find mention of the years he was in these two positions so it's a bit confusing. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Same as the earlier section. Do not bring concerns raised by Breitbart, they will not be considered. ValarianB (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral language
, I'd say 's version is better - it adds all the puropotedlies etc to not state allegations in Wikipedia voice, as done elsewhere. Nelson said, her voice shaking is just honestly awful, extraneous and irrelevant, and (As I expected) copied straight from the news article, possible copyvio (though it's short enough to probably not be). As WP:ALLEGED says, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah that 'shaking' thing I figured for a direct copyio, and basically that kind of portion is an opinion piece by an interviewer. Generally when quoting people we just use the words and do not include commentary on the manner in which it was said. Imagine how cluttered WP quoting would get if "he said, smiling" or "she replied, resting her cheek on her hand" or "he answered, lifting his left eyebrow" type stuff was littered in the quoting. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah seriously it'd be ridiculous and embarrassing. The sentence She said Moore then put his hand on her neck and tried to force her head down on his crotch. should also be removed I reckon and replaced with non-copyvio wording. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't using Wikipedia's vice to assert an allegation if you're quoting a person directly, yet you want to erase the quote and claim copyvio. Seems a bit of having one's cake and eating it too. ValarianB (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The now-reverted content was a huge weasel word cluster F. Good it's reverted. That doesn't mean the content can't be improved, but adding so many weasel words was not a good solution.
 * Using short quotes is covered by fair use, and the attempt at forcing a blowjob is best covered by using her own words. Deletion is a horrible solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * God, it's not a quote from her that I'm complaining about. That's fine, I know, (but the ones could be shortened). It's a sentence copied from a news article (actually an entire paragraph, but of mostly quotes). The news article is paraphrasing what she said in that sentence. The now-reverted content is not a "weasel word cluster F", it's non-BLP violating correct wording. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification. The content, before the reversion, was the cluster F. Otherwise it's good to straighten out whether it's her words or AL.com. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't a quote? It's from the news article, not a direct quote from her. It either has to be "the al times said etc" or something like that, or removed. Also, elsewhere, allegations have to be clear as such. Sentences like Nelson accepted a ride from Moore after she are unacceptable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should use her own words, because stuff like "forcing a blowjob" is original research. Her quote doesn't even claim he exposed himself or anything. That could just as easily be a http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LapPillow situation. The "shaking" voice thing is NOT her words though, that's a reporter's commentary about how they think she sounded while speaking. What's next, we comment on how someone had a "gruff" voice during an interview, or that someone was coughing a lot during an interview? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know - it's ridiculous, (he said gruffly). Also, seriously need some allegedly in there (like in the rest of article, I believe a lack of it is part of why the article was originally AfDed) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To clarify for people what Galobtter has objected to and BullRangifer has applauded, is special:diff/816126140 from Valarian with these notable changes:
 * "Nelson purportedly accepted a ride from Moore" -> "Nelson accepted a ride from Moore"
 * "The entry Nelson ascribed to Moore states" -> "Moore's entry states"
 * "Nelson said that she added "D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House" to this entry" -> "Nelson said that she added the words "D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House" below this entry"

This is the supposed "weasel word cluster F" BullRangifier is talking about. These are supposedly improvements from ValerianB. I think it's pretty clear that the first 2 bullets are restoring neutral voice to the article. We should not be using Wikipedia's voice to assert that Nelson accepted a ride or that the entry was made by Moore.

The 3rd bullet is clearly a correction to a mistake. The BBC article includes these 2 lines
 * Beverly Nelson said she noted the date and location beneath what she maintains is his handwriting on her yearbook
 * Nelson and her lawyer said she had added "D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House

The lie which ValerianB has restored to the article stating that Nelson added D.A. below the entry is not supported by the source. The source only says "beneath" in respect to the date and location. It goes on to say that (per Nelson and her lawyer) Nelson added "D.A." too, but not beneath/below it.

This mistake is obvious to anyone who actually looks at the sources, since D.A. is written to the right and not below. I expect Valerian is not doing this and is blindly mass-reverting my edits due to a vendetta against me over our mutual editing of Unite the Right rally previously.

I'm hesitant to fix Valerian's vandalism (because restoring a clear falsehood like D.A. being BELOW the signature is obviously not acting in the interests of the wiki) because it will probably be counted against me due to some kind of reverts-per-day restriction on this content, so I'm hoping someone else will, based on the evidence I have highlighted above. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow if nobody steps up.

I'd also like to note that "added the words" doesn't make sense, because it's not all words, the date is written in numbers and D.A. is initials. The only "words" are the 3 used to form the location "Olde Hickory House". ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, obviously the correct wording. There's a consensus required for challenged edits restriction (which is why I didn't revert). Irn seems to have done most of the edits now tho.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to put it in Nelson's voice without using the "weasel-y" wording that I think Valarian objected to ("purportedly", "claimed", etc.). And I've changed the description of her notes to reflect the obvious. Is that a workable compromise? -- irn (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think said is better than say claimed - the changes are good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All the same to me, to say/to claim seem like synonymous verbs to me but I guess they produce different feels to some readers. "Claimed" is 7 letters and "said" is 4 so brevity is better. What replaced purportedly? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What I object to is ScratchMarshall altering facts reported by reliable sources, watering down every detail into "alleged alleged alleged" A prime example is this restoration of mine just now. ValarianB (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The example you linked has literally no weasel words at all, and your change introduced errors: the notes that Nelson made are not all "words" and are not all "below" the signature, so the previous version was more accurate. And Moore contests the signature, so, in light of of BLP, we should err on the side of caution and simply describe what is there: an entry with Moore's signature, dated a week before. By referring to it this way, we don't lose anything, and we stick with what is indisputably true. You call that "watered down", but I call it accuracy.
 * I don't understand why in this this edit you would remove the description of the store. What does that serve? Having the store name and description adds context to help understand what's going on: Moore was frequenting a clothing store geared towards young women. And in this edit, why do you object to noting where she worked and that she was a cheerleader? Again, these details add context, and I don't understand why you are so adamant about excluding them.-- irn (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And stuff like ...Miller's mother Martha Brackett (who had allegedly been working in the mall.... Seriously? We need to cast doubt on if a person worked at a mall, when it is clearly cited? I tried to clean this mess up with a hammer, but if it needs to be scalpeled out piece by piece then so be it. ValarianB (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

policy for arrangement of sections
The 3 assault allegations Corfman > Nelson > Johnson appears to go by their ages at stated years (14>16>28) rather than the years (February 1979 > January 1979 > 1991)

The 6 non-assault allegations (Miller > Gibson > Deason > Thorp > Richardson > Gray) do not appear to be arranged by age (14 > 17 > 18 > 17 > 17 > 22) or year (79 > 81 > 79 > 82 > fall 77 > ? 77) so I'm not sure what's up with that. If we are arranging these by youngest > oldest then shouldn't Deason be moved after Thorp and Richardson just before Gray?

If this is arranged by the dates of public accusation then I think we should clarify this by stating the dates they first accused Moore. Far as I can tell this happened in batches re WaPo articles, so some will share dates though, making it unclear how to arrange them. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To maintain neutrality (not favoring or prioritizing some over others), we could place them in the chronological order of the alleged incidents. That way we'd see a progression in Moore's age from the first to the later incidents. The ages of the women would still be all over the map. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)