Talk:Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations

Breitbart News heading

In the 'reactions' section there's a specific subheading for reactions from Breitbart (under 'Moore and his campaign'). Of course Breitbart is closely linked to Moore's campaign, but if there's no need for a subheading for other news reactions do we really need one for Breitbart? 65.122.128.10 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. Artw (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Richardson and Republicanism

@ValarianB: in special:diff/816171632 removed the following information from the Washington Post source:

She describes herself as a moderate Republican and says she didn’t vote in the 2016 general election or in this year’s Republican Senate primary in Alabama.

I used it to support this sentence in the article:

Richardson, who describes herself as a moderate Republican who did not vote in the 2016 general election or the 2017 Republican Senate primary in Alabama

VB simply changed this to:

Richardson, who is a Republican

I am wrongly accused of synthesis simply for reporting the very information which the Washington Post itself conveyed.

The ACTUAL synthesis here is calling Richardson a republican. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH because the cited Washington Post article never called her a Republican. ValerianB is engaged in WP:OR by calling Richardson a Republican based on this source.

We should be neutral like the Washington Post was, and report that she describes herself as one. There is no need to take sides in an issue and simply present statements from any side as truth.

I mean, for example, if Roy Moore said "I am a non-rapist" and WashPo had reported "Moore describes himself as a non-rapist" we would not report "Moore is a non-rapist".

I am requesting we restore the correct and accurate conveyance of this information and remove Valerian's PoV-pushing OR. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Marshall, your editing to political articles has been a detriment to the project, with nearly every edit of yours to a variety of articles reverted by many many, many different editors. I fully stand behind my removal of your tangled, unnecessary verbosity. ValarianB (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we need to include her political affiliation and voting history at all? It makes sense to cover this in a newspaper bio, but not in an encyclopedia article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Because Moore was running for office at the time and Moore and his defenders charged that the accusations were politically motivated, I think it makes sense. -- irn (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB: Your response is little more than a personal attack. We shuld be discussing the merits of the edit in question. SM's edit more accurately reflects what is in the source. Yes, it is slightly more wordy, but per WP:BLP, accuracy is more important. -- irn (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My response is an observation based on months of observation, shared by many other editors who have had to deal with his disruption. ValarianB (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Moore campaign dismissed as defendant in Corfman suit

Someone needs to add this update. https://sports.yahoo.com/judge-dismisses-defamation-claim-against-001236112.html Andyvphil (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roy moore official portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)