Jump to content

Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Judge Roy Moore

How is it possible that this hideous example of humankind was actually appointed to the position of Chief Justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.3.20 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Roy Moore is a terrible example of the humankind that can't get its (publicly and popularly advertised) facts straight. Apparently, the above commentator failed to recognize that the people of Alabama elected Judge Moore. He also failed to realize that that fact is available in the article. In addition, Judge Moore is also a poor example of one who launches Ad Hominem attacks. ElderHap (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See the bottom of the page for Judge Moore's bid for the office of Alabama's Governor. ElderHap (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Contempt of Court?

I'm not sure if technically he was in comtempt of court -- the sqanction wasn't issued by teh ruling US Districty Court, but by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. orthogonal 19:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As I understand it, he was in contempt of court once the time limit for compying the court order to remove the monument expired. However, he wasn't removed specifically for that reason - I'll review the article and adjust as necessary to make clear the distinction between his contempt and the Court of the Judiciary decision. Google definition is "A act of defiance of court authority or dignity. Contempt of court can be direct (swearing at a judge or violence against a court officer) or constructive (disobeying a court order). The punishment for contempt is a fine or a brief stay in jail (i.e. overnight)". In the case of the judge, he made it clear that he'd continue to act in that way, so some way to prevent continual recurrances was needed. Jamesday 04:38, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me, but isn't "As a legal matter, this case is one of the most significant examples of the period of why there is separation of church and state, a principle which, in part is a reflection of the religious persecution by the majority which cause the Pilgrim Fathers to leave England for the Americas. It has a judge who was found to have violated separation, ran for office in a state with a large majority of his religion, on a platform that he would continue to do so, then proceeded to do so when in office. Finally, the judicial system and its controls removed the head judge of a state from office to preserve the separation, in the face of the inevitable disagreement of the majority of the general population of the state, for the fundamental purpose of the separation is to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of the minorities." a bit non-NPOV? It's worded so ambiguously that I can't tell whether it's in favour or against the action taken against Moore, but regardless, it's too verbose, and possibly POV. --Johnleemk 12:51, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like an essay that I would write for school.. and isn't NPOV "non-point of view", meaning that non-NPOV = POV? :-) ugen64 01:52, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Actually NPOV is "neutral point of view", not "non point of view". But anyway, I also feel that that paragraph is very POV, I can't see anything that looks like an actual fact in it rather than opion. Saul Taylor 02:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you, me, or most other people acted like Roy Moore did we'd probably be facing jail time for contempt of court and violating a court order. Moore was very lucky that the only thing that happened was for him to loose his job.
JesseG 02:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

removing phrase "so-called"

Without objection, I think we should remove the "so-called" in front of the phrase "separation of church and state." That there is a legal and philosophical position called "separation of church and state" I don't think can be legitimately disputed, and the use of offending words is not neutral. ~~ adoarns 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my tardiness. I object to the removal. I agree that the existence of such a position cannot be legitimately disputed, but I must recognize that the legitimacy of the same may absolutely be disputed. Further, I suggest that the use of the phrase, "separation of church and state," can impute POV to a proposition. For this reason, I suggest that the words, "so-called" should precede the phrase, "separation of church and state." I suggest this because the prefix only communicates the hypothetical nature of the doctrine. The fact that jurists are empowered to create such a doctrine adds no more credibility to it than telling a lie three times adds credibility to the lie. If I were to refer to a person as a "so-called" person, then that would be offensive to the person. This would be unacceptable. If I were to refer to "so-called" Christianity of America, then that would only communicate the existence of evidence that supports a contrary proposition: that America is not a Christian nation. This is not non-neutral per se. For this reason, a reference to "so-called" separation of church and state is not non-neutral per se. The reference only communicates the existence of a position contrary to a disputed doctrine.

Moreover, referring to the doctrine as a "so-called" doctrine communicates the absolute existence of evidence of logical fallacies within the doctrine. Again, communicating the existence of such fallacies is not POV; it is informative. As such, it has its proper place in an encyclopedia. ElderHap (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Iilliterate guy with the school bus

This admittedly made me laugh, but it is quite POV. I'm taking it out. --Saucy Intruder 2 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

The bus

I've seen this bus and a news article about it. He's quite sincere, and has added more praise of Moore to it, this time getting the name spelled right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.106.170 (talk)

POV

There is a section that appears to try to enter the mind of Judge Moore to explain why he made a particular statement on a talk show. The authors should not presume to read the mind of Judge Moore, rather the facts should speak for themselves.

I thought that uppercasing all letters in GOD (rather than a proper noun "God") was a POV, but it turns out that the court records do the same, so it's an accurate reflection of the public record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciguy.com (talk • contribs)

Please sign your name!

Howdy,

I'd appreciate it if those who created the sections "removing phrase "so-called"", "The bus", and "POV" would sign with their username (just add four ~tildes~ after what you've written).

If you don't have a username yet, you can get one for free here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup.

Remember, Be bold in updating pages, and welcome!

--EChronicle 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all! --EChronicle 19:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The link for the first reference is dead. Lizz612 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Political Bias in this Entry

"Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus."

Despite the disclaimer on the Discussion section that Moore is a candidate for Governor and is therefore subject to bias, there is no justification for publishing incorrect information about him on this entry.

1) Moore has no interest in enforcing into law the ideals of the Southern Baptist - merely the law of God. He recognizes that the law of God is what should dictate our laws, and this is all he is saying.

2) When Moore was removed from office, it was not because he was violating a court order; it was because he told Bill Pryor in cross-examination that he would continue to acknowledge God if he remained as Chief Justice. There was a convenient justification from a PR standpoint to explain his removal away as a defiance of court order, but in reality, this was not the basis at all. The argument was actually conceded by the prosecuting in the first hearing, the Chief Justice has the right to decorate the building as he sees fit.

What was the basis for the decision? According to presiding Judge Myron Thompson, it was because "Moore violates the first amendment to the US Constitution by ackowledging God in the court room..." Moore's defense is that he did not violate the first amdentment, because:

a) He is not congress
b) Acknowledging God is not a law set in motion by congress
c) Acknowledging God is not an establishment of religion

Interesting to note that Thompson never allowed a definition of religion to be presented, despite Moore's demand that he do so.

3) Moore is admired by many. He has over 3,000 volunteers serving his grassroots campaign, and Riley does not have a campaign
4) Separation of Church and State is the popular law he broke...I will concede this if you can show it in the Constitution. I can, and would be happy to, show you where in the Alabama Constitution the Justice and Chief Justice is obligated to acknowledge God. He placed each hand on a Bible when he swore into office as Chief Justice, to uphold the Constitution of Alabama above all...even if it meant violating a court order (which is not a law).

These are the facts of the "Ten Commandments case", and this is how I have presented it. Your entries are nothing more than un-supported theories and popular belief that Moore broke the law, but I have shown how he lawfully upheld the Constitution. I will continue to re-edit this page as many times a day as necessary, to state the facts in a proven and un-biased manner.

(Unrelated note): The {{activepol}} tag is meant to alert people that there may be bias, not to excuse it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleAP (talk • contribs) 26 May 2006

"Moral basis of law"

I suggest that the lines on the "moral basis of law" in the Aftermath subsection be removed, rewritten, and/or moved to another article (perhaps on that subject). The passage IMO is needlessly wordy and isn't too subtle with POV, either. Since the term is redlinked, I suggest that a variation of these lines be inserted as an article for that topic to solve that problem, and then perhaps one sentence referring to the principle could be left in this section. (That's really a compromise position; my inclination would be to just remove it. The topic apparently hasn't been noted enough for an article to already exist, and this article would be better off without the POV issue.) HumbleGod 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed the POV paragraph. Also rearranged some of the other paragraphs here--the Aftermath subsection had grown to include miscellaneous information about his political career that wasn't directly related to the Ten Commandments case. Moved those and the candidacy for governor to a new Political life outside the judiciary section. Also created a page Judge Roy Moore that redirects here, since Moore is well known by that title in the state of AL (and in fact campaigned as "Judge Roy Moore for Governor"). HumbleGod 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


"Moral basis of law" redux (POV, Content, Not verified)

The section in question was added again recently. I have taken the liberty of removing it for the following reasons:

  1. It's placement in the section Political life outside the judiciary was problematic, if not altogether improper.
  2. The text in question was abstract from Roy Moore's life and, if anything, deserves an article of its own rather than a digression in this one.
  3. The text is, in my opinion, highly POV. The ideas that "the moral nature of law [as described in this section] is inherent" in the Declaration, that the "necessity of a rule of law originating in the authority of God is an unquestionably distinctive 18th century judicial tenet", and that this subject was "so clearly established as bedrock, early American precedent" are far from "unquestionable," and are indeed open to rigorous debate among historians of both political and the judicial schools of thought.

My suggestion for proponents of this idea's inclusion, as stated in earlier comments, is that a sentence be devoted to the "moral basis of law" in sections relating to the federal lawsuit here, linking to a new article being devoted specifically to the concept of the "moral basis of law." I think that the article will be better-developed and better-understood if the entire WP community has access to it as its own concept, rather than as a footnote in this article. This will also hopefully avoid the inclusion of POV text in this article, leaving the risks of POV to be limited to the article on the subject itself. -- H·G (words/works) 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I did some further research to see if the term "moral basis of law" is a widely-understood political or judicial concept or philosophy. Judging from Google searches, it is apparently not--a search for "'moral basis of law' God" yielded exactly 37 unique hits, several of which referred to other topics and none of which were articles or papers specifically focused on that topic. The closest I came was a quote from former Supreme Court justice Warren Burger, whose invocation of the term was not synonymous with its description in this article and which must be considered a different concept in the context of Burger's rulings. Therefore, not only do I feel that its inclusion in this article is not warranted, I feel that unless further relevant sources can be found, it will never survive as either an article or a section in an article without violating WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. -- H·G (words/works) 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have left messages on the talk page of User:Donahue, who has made the above changes, to discuss their appropriateness and relevance here. Instead, he has chosen to re-add these sections without discussing them. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I have added several templates to note my disputes listed above. I hate to be carrying on a one-sided conversation on this topic, but when one editor makes changes rather than addressing them in Discussion pages, I see no alternative. I strongly encourage other editors to review the section in question and discuss it here. -- H·G (words/works) 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Clearly the passages you indicate are written with a non-neutral POV. These opinions need to either be attributed to a notable source relevant to the biography or removed. --Dystopos 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While a few sources were provided for the section in question, none were relevant to its application to this particular subject. (The sources were texts of speeches by George Washington and Patrick Henry; however, none sources were provided to show their relevance to this subject. Nor were any verifiable sources provided in regards to "moral basis of law" and how it applies to Roy Moore.) Thus, I have removed them. -- H·G (words/works) 07:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Since General Washington and Patrick Henry aren't around to comment on Moore's legal theories, citing them to support a POV about Moore is original research. Donahue continues to replace his deleted essay and I continue to remove it. --Dystopos 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw combat?

The current version of the article notes that Moore "saw combat" in Vietnam. However, the two web references that mention it[1][2] note that he was a company commander of MPs in Vietnam, guarding a stockade in Da Nang, but don't clarify whether Moore was actually involved in combat. I don't have a copy of his autobiography; does anyone with that book know if it mentions anything about whether Moore was actually involved in combat? -- H·G (words/works) 03:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

I'd like to see this article eventually improved to Good Article status. Thus I think this might be a good place for listing improvements that could be made to the article to bring it to that point. Here are a couple off the top of my head:

  1. The article could use a good GFDL-compliant picture of "Roy's Rock," the Ten Commandments monument Moore is known for. The monument is such a significant part of Moore's notability that this article suffers by not having a picture of it.
  2. On that note, maybe we could use some more details about the monument itself? The monument is known for being quite well-sculpted, ornate, and (by some accounts) awe-inspiring. A good paragraph describing the monument's features in some detail couldn't hurt.
  3. Cleanup of Judicial career. Moore's tenure as state Chief Justice was not without controversy aside from the monument issue. Right now the first portion of this section only lists two sentences, one from each of his judicial positions (without any transition), and then heads straight into the decalogue controversy. This section could be revised, maybe with an expansion on his tenure as a circuit court judge and an additional subsection on his non-decalogue actions as C.J?
  4. The section on the removal of the decalogue monument doesn't mention the sizeable protests that occurred on the streets of Montgomery during the weeks preceding the removal. The Atlantic link discusses this (I think) and may serve as a good reference if this information were added. It should be, as it demonstrates the breadth of his support.
  5. The section on Moore's candidacy for governor could probably use some more material. Anything significant in terms of campaign stops, rallying issues? Additionally (and separately), what about Moore's role in derail the proposed anti-school-segregation state amendment in 2004? (Here's an article on that, for starters.)
  6. Of course, since we're dealing with a controversial figure, we'll have to find ways to keep the article stable and to reach consensus when making changes. Some recent changes have been made repeatedly by one or more newer users who have thus far ignored any calls for discussion and consensus on this article. This applies to partisans on all sides, but since this particular user is putting in POV statements that are "pro-Moore," I'd note that any attempt to reach consensus increases the article's odds of reaching Good Article status and would thus increase Moore's exposure to people who might not otherwise learn about him.

That's all I can think of for now. Can anyone else think of any improvements that could be made? -- H·G (words/works) 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

For the last week or so I've been working on an expansion of this article in my user talkspace. Please feel free to check out the draft of this expansion here. If no one objects, I'd like to move the draft to this article in a week's time (8/21). If you do object, or if you have any suggestions, please feel free to mention them here or in my talkspace. (While the draft is in my user talkspace, I ask that you not alter it directly.) -- H·G (words/works) 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've added the draft. Issues that still need to be resolved:
  • The "fruit salad" thing....I'm this close to removing it altogether. I've been able to find the nickname sticking to him in a few Google searches, but nothing to confirm it was assigned to him by a former professor.
  • It may be a bit too wordy. I'll leave that for others to judge/alter. -- H·G (words/works) 03:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is part of the story missing?

From news accounts, I remember that Moore appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. The 8 Associate Justices recused themselves because they participated in the decision to overrule Moore and remove the monument. 8 surrogate Justices were then appointed to hear the case. I don't have a source at the moment, but I distinctly remember that happening, since the unusual mass-recusal is what drew me to this case in the first place. VxP 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dominionism

The subject is listed on Template:Dominionism as an advocate of Dominionism, so I have added the template. Tom Harrison Talk 12:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

POV in lead graf

Former last sentence of opening paragraph: "For these actions, Moore is seen as a hero by many Americans" (wording may be slightly off, I didn't copy and paste that). Entirely true; I have no objection to noting this in the article, and I'd probably agree that it's important enough to note in the lead. However, while true, this is woefully incomplete to the point of being biased. Many people think he's a hero, but many people also hold the opposite opinion. Thus I edited the sentence to "The controversy around Moore drew national attention and strong opinions on both sides." This seems a more complete descriptions of the vigorous debate about Moore. (The rephrasing wasn't an attempt to sneak the word "hero" out of the sentence, but I wanted a parallel construction and the obvious opposite of hero, "villian", didn't seem right, so I went from scratch.)75.139.32.246 08:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed the diffs where the "hero" sentence was added a few edits ago. Yeah, that was blatant POV.75.139.32.246 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Judge Moore's Candidacy in Alabama's 2010 Gubernatorial Election

Judge Roy Moore has announced his bid for the office of Governor of the State of Alabama. If there are no objections, I will (if nobody else does) edit the article to include the pertinent information. ElderHap (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Early Life Section Citations?

That's quite a bit of biographical information and there's not a single citation. Thetableist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Washington's speech

Washington's speech is apparently cited as 'early American precedent.' However, As a matter of basic principle, a speech does not constitute precedent. 'Precedents' are decisions made by courts that interpret the law, in this case constitutional law, and constitute binding authority on that law; Washington, not being a court, could not set legal precedents by his actions.

As no other reference to early American judicial precedent appears in the text, I removed the title of the subheading stating that any such precedent appears, or implying that Washington's "official" acts constitute precedent. [Giving a speech, incidentally, is not an exercise of any legal power under the Constitution; rather it is simply an exercise of Washington's right to express himself freely, much as any citizen might]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.172.156 (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Addendum: as the sentence stating that Moore saw the speech as 'precedent' seems rather unlikely--Moore is likely to understand what precedent is--I have also removed that sentence. However I have not reviewed his arguments or the court's decision myself; if he really relied on the 'precedent' in question then it would also be necessary to explain what 'precedent' usually means, as it is likely the basis on which the court rejected Moore's argument. I have also noted that Washington's 'official' act was not in any sense authorised by the Constitution, other than as an expression of free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.172.156 (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

2010

Please feel free to dispute any information given; only, please discuss before removing information that is merely questionable. ElderHap (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to become familiar with Wiki policy and what constitutes notability for an encyclopedia versus what is trivia. The onus is on you to show how the things you have added belong. Atlantabravz (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your sentiments. There is probably a discussion regarding the differences between Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia policies. Feel free to browse. Here are two interesting links: WP:Trivia WP:Notability
Also, you may want to check out WP:Burden. It says that the burden is one that requires the editor to show that the information is true. It also says that one who believes the information is false should in good faith find a reference for it. As for any burden to show that information "belongs" in an article, please inform me of the source of that information.
Regards, ElderHap (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
In addition, please reference http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. Also, consider that this information is notable, relevant, and significant. It is not trivial. You might refer the link above: WP:trivia. This is not a trivia section. Thousands of people regard the relationships of Bobby Allison as very noteworthy. Is there some reason you think it is trivial? ElderHap (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the information belongs, if at all, in Alabama gubernatorial election, 2010. Look at Alabama gubernatorial election, 2002 that contains endorsement and involvement information. George W. Bush is certainly more notable and politically significant than Chuck Norris or Bobby Allison, yet that information is not in Bob Riley's BLP. Atlantabravz (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Atlanabravz, I agree. I think the information belongs in the encyclopedia, and I don't see any reason not to include it in Alabama gubernatorial election, 2010. And although it would be redundant, it is distincly relevant to both that article and this BLP. While the degree of political significance of the relationship between a governor and former U. S. President is high, I don't think it necessarily follows that a declaration of the significance of the relationship between a gubernatorial candidate, who has served as Chief Justice of the state's Supreme Court and not governor, and a notable person whose politicization exists outside the realm of civil government would provide sufficient support to exclude the information from either article. The information finds relevance in the gubernatorial article due to it's political character, and its relevance to the BLP lies in the personal nature of the interaction between the two men. For this reason, the information is notable in both articles. Adding the info to the gubernatorial article is helpful. Yours is a good suggestion, and I wish I'd thought of it. ElderHap (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I included it in an endorsements section for the election and allowed balance so that others could add notable endorsements to that article. I disagree that it belongs in Moore's BLP, however. I'm not sure if you understand the example I gave, but Bush's endorsement of Riley from 2002 isn't even listed in his bio. The "personal nature of the interaction between the two men" is not mentioned in the brief article that you cited. That is considered original research and not verifiable. All candidates receive endorsements from all types of people during a campaign, and the proper place for them is in an article discussing the campaign, especially if the endorser is not of any political significance and other BLPs don't also set a precedent of mentioning them. Atlantabravz (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll add a citation to an additional source for the reference to the personal interaction. I can understand your conflation of a person's political significance and their engagement in an office of civil government; however, the information is not out of place in the BLP for the person's lack of political significance. As to the "allegation" of original research, I simply omitted the citation. Again, let me urge you to use good faith in editing the contributions of others. If everybody started deleting things simply because they thought it was original research, then we'd have constant reversions. I think the better thing to do is to identify the information as needing a citation. See "Citation Needed" Tag; Tagging a sentence, section, or article ElderHap (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the request for a third opinion, we may want to describe the issue as follows: Under Wikipedia policies and guildelines, does information identifying and describing the interaction between two notable individuals merit inclusion in one of the individual's BLP when the information is neither inflamatory nor hagiographic, and is pertinent to the section in which it is included.

I don't think the issue is notability. Also, I'm not averse to including the information in the election article. ElderHap (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your third opinion

Hi, I'm here to provide your third opinion. Nothing I say is binding, but I hope that my input will help you resolve your disagreements.

  • Notability does not govern article content. Notability guidelines merely determine what topics are suitable for its own standalone article, and do not address questions of content within articles.
  • It is within editorial discretion as judged by WP:Consensus on this talk page regarding what is relevant to this article and what is trivial.
  • It is correct that BLPs should have the highest quality of sources. However, keep in mind that biographical information is held to the same standards whether it's in a BLP article or a non-BLP article.
  • Has any source specifically investigated or discussed the relationship between Moore and Alison? If no secondary sources have seen fit to analyze this relationship, then we must be careful not to speculate on the nature of it based on primary sources or sources that do not themselves add commentary or analysis on the relationship itself.

Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roy Moore/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs some cleanup (spellchecking, punctuation) and also consistency in citing sources (as well as getting some sources cited where they're missing). Once this is done go for GA, and then a peer review and then FA! plange 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


2014

The first section quoting women's place in the home and shamefulness of homosexuality sound over the top -- can any one else source these statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.12.116 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

2011

Somebody has added what looks suspiciously like Christian Nationalist propaganda to this article, in section Early American Judicial Precedent. The entire section is un-sourced firstly, and does not refer to any court decisions so it can not be called "judicial precedent", and seems to suggest that the United States was founded on Christianity. Which is an assertion often made by Christian Right activists, and hotly contested by advocates of separation of church and state. I question the neutrality of the section. Marnold101 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've deleted it. AV3000 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Weasel Words & Violation of NPOV

The article stated that Moore's opinion led to critics [plural] saying that Moore wanted a Christians only theocracy. A citation of one critic, not critics, was given. But these are weasel words used to insert an anti-Moore statement into the article, violation of NPOV. It is easy to find persons who disapprove of Moore criticizing Moore & saying all kinds of negative things about Moore. Also it is easy to find persons who approve of Moore and praising him. The article should not favor negatives or praise by selective reference. Also, the opinion cited is obviously wrong. To object to Moslems in office is not to advocate "Christians only," nor is it to advocate theocracy. Moslems believe in "theocracy." To object to Moslem theocracy is not to advocate Christians only theocracy. (EnochBethany (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC))

I agree. That violates NPOV and violates WP's policy on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.33.82 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Someone who can edit this article needs to remove the first two entries on the list of external links -- "Roy Moore Exploratory Committee" and "Roy Moore's gubernatorial campaign site" -- as they now direct to sites that are in an Asian language. They also set off warnings from my security software that they could contain potentially malicious content. -- Entrybreak (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Looks like I do have permission to makes edits, so I removed them. -- Entrybreak (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable Play?

I'll close this, even though I have clahsed with 209.6.114.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a while ago, in this very article, but on a different matter--and I am happy to report that I was correct and the IP was not. :) The argument for removal, that "the play is not notable", is effectively countered: the element does not need its own notability. Lazy Bastard's comment does not categorically go one way or another and leaves plenty of room to allow the content (probably not in a separate section) if it adds to broader understanding etc. The sources brought forward by the IP (please add to the article) indicate that it does, a position supported by Mkativerata. Coretheapple's "seems trivial" isn't a very strong argument and, again, is effectively countered by the IP and supported by Mkativerata.

In other words, removal is deemed unwarranted given the extensive-enough coverage, without strong arguments for removal found in policy or guidelines. Inclusion in the "regular" biography is deemed warranted. I urge the IP (and possibly Mkativerate) to effect these changes. I don't have to point out that these edits need to be made economically and neutrally, since this is a BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's a section called Judge Roy Moore is Coming to Dinner about a play which is a parody of Judge Roy Moore. If it is notable it should probably have it's own page as the play does not feature him at all. However, there's limited WP:SOURCES on this and the play's creator. Seems like WP:FRINGE ... Goodambitions (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Summoned by bot. Seems trivial, I would favor removal. Coretheapple (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Retain.→Edit per Mkativerata. No, WP:NNC explicitly says that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article", so it's incorrect to conflate article notability and inclusion notability, and it's irrelevant that the play is a comedy or that its creator isn't notable enough for a separate article. WP:FRINGE refers to fringe theories and opinions, not the notability of people, events, or culture. There are several reliable sources for the play and its 2012 revival ([3][4][5][6]), and Moore chose to respond to it, which are IMO sufficient for inclusion. 209.6.114.98 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. 209.6.114.98 has a reasonable point that this is not fringe or trivial. But it certainly does not warrant a separate section of the article; currently, the coverage is disproportionate. I would suggest a brief sentence, perhaps in D.H. vs. H.H., which is the relevant judicial event to which the play appears to pertain. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Anyone can write a play about anyone else. What we need to substantiate is whether it 1) adds to a broader understanding of the subject and 2) whether it actually impacted the life & legacy of the subject. Awhile back, I removed a tidbit from the Ted Nugent article about a band that wrote a song criticizing him. While they may have undoubtedly done so, was it necessary to mention? It was presented without reference to its impact on Nugent's life or his response. A section may not be necessary, but we should be careful as to whether it's worth mentioning - it could amount to WP:PROMO. LazyBastardGuy 16:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roy Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Roy Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Honorific prefix in infobox

@Rik Spoutnik: It has come to my attention you've been adding the honorific prefix into Moore's infobox. While that's typically used in articles for retired United States Supreme Court Justices such as Sandra Day O'Conner, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter; you can include it, if you reach censuses. —Fundude99talk to me 20:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


@Fundude99:

Hello,

As Moore was the chief justice of the SC of AL, he receives the title of "The Honorable" (formally). It seems that the titles are given randomly though, as some justice have it (O'Connor), but not others (William Rehnquist, for example.)

Rik Spoutnik (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Rik Spoutnik

@Rik Spoutnik: They are not given at random, they are given to RETIRED US SUPREME COURT JUSTICES (that means living, breathing, retired United States Supreme Court Justices). Please do not reintroduce it into the article without reaching a censuses. Any questions?—Fundude99talk to me 21:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99:

It doesn't make any sense to LIVING justices only (you don't lose your title when you die), and only to SCOTUS justices. Moreover, state supreme court justices have the same honorific as their federal counterpart, so there is no reason not to include it. Understood?

@Rik Spoutnik: I am completely aware that state supreme court justices are gave the same honorific title as their federal counterparts. It is given to Moore, I am not contradicting that, all I am saying is you you want to include it in this article, you need to get consensus because generally I disagree that it should be included.—Fundude99talk to me 21:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99:

So why do YOU believe that it shouldn't be included?

@Rik Spoutnik: Because it is not standard practice, look buddy all I'm saying here is that you can have it included but you need to have consensus because others might not agree with you as well.—Fundude99talk to me 21:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit) What I am telling you is per WP:INFOBOXUSE, which states, "...Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article..."—Fundude99talk to me 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99:

Right, I understand the consensus part. What I'm saying is that if something is wrong (in this case, omitting a Justice's title), then we should fix it instead of maintaining the status quo. Because the etiquette for an honorific do not actually apply to a "living, retired SC justice" specifically, it seems arbitrary to use that as a rule.

@Rik Spoutnik: Previous attempts to change it have failed, but by all means go for it.—Fundude99talk to me 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99: Ok, I'll change it and check the page later to see if someone else decides to change it back.
@Rik Spoutnik: Ok, I think you should start a RfC to get consensus because I don't think it should be included, and I am not trying to edit war with you.—Fundude99talk to me 12:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99:

Why don't we just leave it and see if someone tries to change it back rather than starting this tedious process? It seems absurd to create an RFC for that, given that it's just me and you discussing a single issue.

@Rik Spoutnik: Because you keep reintroducing it when I do NOT agree that it should be included. —Fundude99talk to me 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:HONOR clearly states, "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: styles and honorifics derived from a title, position or activity, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable..."
I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about this.—Fundude99talk to me 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur; WP:HONOR does seem to preclude including Moore's honorific. --Weazie (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
After reading the guideline I'll 3rd that. It shouldn't be included. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99:

You conveniently forgot the part that states "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that." That means it's mentioned in the infobox, but not throughout the article itself.

@Rik Spoutnik: That only applies to the titilea of, "Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady."—Fundude99talk to me 17:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99:

It applies to honorific titles, which "the Honorable" is.

@Rik Spoutnik: Clearly this isn't going anywhere; myself and two other editors disagree with you so if you reintroduce it without getting consensus, I'll report you to the admin board.—Fundude99talk to me 18:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Weazie:, @Morty C-137: Would one of you please revert his latest edit.—Fundude99talk to me 18:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS discourages canvassing "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate." Having said that, I see that the user has been temporarily blocked; hopefully things will calm down. --Weazie (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fundude99:

I'll report you myself to the notice board; you can't argue, and you think you own this page. The rules you provided contradict your own statements; recognise your mistake, and move on.

@Rik Spoutnik: PLEASE STOP. You don't have consensus for this edit. You said you'd leave it off if a 3rd party removed it, I'm a 3rd party, I removed it and then you put it back again. PLEASE STOP. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Pretty clear from your profile that you're just a copy of fundude 99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rik Spoutnik (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rik Spoutnik: If you're accusing me of sock puppetry, go ahead and report me for it, the result will amaze you since you seem to think that you know everything.—Fundude99talk to me 18:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(diff | hist) . . Roy Moore‎; 18:42 . . (-10)‎ . . ‎Rik Spoutnik (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 781698085 by Morty C-137 (talk) You have no history.)

I think we may be dealing with someone who's not stable. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in the process of reporting him to the Administrators' noticeboard.—Fundude99talk to me 18:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"Honorable" is a prefix, not a title, and should be removed per MOS:HONORIFIC. Bahooka (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Top of the page edit

I think the third and fourth paragraph at the top of the page should be switched so that it reads more chronologically. Just my opinion though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.55.233.92 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roy Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this not slanderous?

"Moore's travels eventually took him to Texas, where he spent a year training and fighting professionally as a kickboxer. After a brief return to Gadsden, Moore next travelled to the Australian Outback and, after meeting fundamentalist Christian Colin Rolfe, worked for almost a year as a cowboy on Rolfe's 42,000-acre (170 km2) cattle ranch. He remembered both careers fondly in his autobiography and subsequent interviews and was particularly proud of a kickboxing victory in the Greater Gadsden Tournament of Champions, a triumph he attributed to divine will."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/10/roy-and-his-rock/304264/


and where is reference?--Wikipietime (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not slanderous, maybe libellous, removed "fundamentalist". 18:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Virulently anti-gay and anti-Muslim views

"Virulently" was deleted as an unnecessary adverb. But I don't see why. There are many Republican politicians who are anti-gay and anti-Muslim. But Roy Moore, in particular, believes that homosexuality is "a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it." Roy Moore, in particular, has called Islam "a false religion," and has called for Muslims to be [http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/ barred] from political office. He's controversial not just because he has anti-gay and anti-Muslim views - many do - but because of how extreme his views are. So we need a more specific term, and that's where "virulent" comes in. Fixed245 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need to, just like RS do, denote that his views on homosexuality go far beyond what is conventional, even among the most ardent opponents of LGBT rights in the GOP. Whether it's appropriate to use the term "virulent" or some other similar term that denotes just how extreme it is is fair for discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to "strongly", if you don't think that's enough we could change it to extreme. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"ties to neo-Confederates"?

I don't have time to find my own sources right now. The ones provided suggest that he has ties to Michael Peroutka who apparently is a "neo-Confederate" according to some sources. The source-bombing (and inclusion at all, for that matter) appears to be an attempt to tar him by association. Of course, if it is accurate, relevant, and well-sourced, it should be included (though ideally it should be discussed in the article body as well as the lede in that case). power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

There you go again hunting and hounding me "power". I was not "source bombing", sources were requested by SnoogansSnoogans, and you're using it as a pretext to attack me. Shameful conduct there. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason to need 5 sources for a single phrase in the lede. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't blame me for someone else asking for more sources. Again you're pretexting. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not blaming you. Where did I blame you? If anything, my dispute is with @Snooganssnoogans:, who should comment here before any further edits/reverts on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I am active on almost all American Politics related articles. I'm not "hounding" you in any way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the specific sources: [7] is entirely a re-hashing of the TPM article already sourced. [8] describes Peroutka as a neo-Confederate, "Moore also frequently touted Neo-Confederate philanthropist Michael Peroutka who, in turn, lavished hundreds of thousands of dollars on him and his wife, Kayla." These are the same ties that are described in the existing sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
It's dishonest to take differing bylines in separate reliable sources and claim they are merely "re-hashings" in order to try to deny multiple Reliable Sources. They are covered in multiple sources because it is relevant and notable. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Son

There’s a lot in this BLP about his son’s brushes with the law. Compare Tim Kaine whose son has also transgressed but it’s not in the father’s BLP. In both cases, the son is relatively unknown, and will probably never be a public figure. So I will reduce this material per WP:Weight. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want a discussion on what should or shouldn't be included, bring up your specific points. OTOH, trying to compare his son (habitual scofflaw, a multitude of arrests) to Tim Kaine's son (not charged with anything violent, no prior history) looks like an exercise in whatboutism and/or a comparison of apples to kumquats. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You can see what I have in mind via edits to this BLP that I’ve just made. There was also a lot of recent discussion at Wikipedia about a top CBS lawyer and Vice President of that company who made widely reported comments disparaging the victims of the Las Vegas shooter, and was fired from her job because of those comments. The decision was to completely exclude that info from Wikipedia, because she was not a public figure and unlikely to become one. Same here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the widespread reporting of multiple incidents, his position in his father's campaign, and his father's choice to begin attacking the prosecutors, this is both relevant and encyclopedic. Please stop trying to section-blank. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The material goes way beyond anything his father said, and you have not met your burden of establishing consensus for inclusion. I have started a discussion at a noticeboard, here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a biography of Roy Moore not of his son. Accordingly, I oppose inclusion of this content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 11:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations on constructing a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting "every piece of gossip", but instead the stable version of the article with the notable and relevant information - his son's involvement with his father's campaign and foundation, his father's attacks on the prosecutors, and the simple background history of the son's repeated arrests as are referenced in virtually every news report such as this [9]. The barebones, encyclopedic information. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If his son is ever notable enough for his own article, put the content there, but we do not extensively rehash the histories of the petty crimes of family members who are not the subject of an article. This is not an article on the Moore family; it is an article on Roy Moore. GMGtalk 12:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
"extensively rehash" there you go with the strawman again. A simple notation is not an "extensive rehash", and the fact that Moore himself has attempted to blame the arrests on politics is notable. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Covering a fine he got for getting caught with a joint two years ago is exactly "extensively reshashing". GMGtalk 14:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The important part is "Caleb wrote, "the media and crooked police officers and critics of my dad try to not only destroy his career for what he stands for but will go as far as trying to destroy his family."". Blaming politics for his crimes is a pattern here. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And if his son ever becomes notable enough for his own article that's exactly where that information should go. GMGtalk 15:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is solely about the son, then it should stay out. If Roy himself is involved, in whatever capacity, then it belongs in this article. Volunteer Marek  17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Procreative capacity? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Eww. GMGtalk 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry! Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggested wording: "Caleb has a lengthy arrest record on various charges. On past occasions he has accused police and prosecutors of arresting him to damage his father. (Source https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/03/18/Son-of-Alabama-Chief-Justice-Roy-Moore-arrested-on-drug-charges/7401426652999/) In October 2017, Moore accused prosecutors of "a cheap political trick" after his son was arrested for third-degree criminal trespassing. (Source http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/10/roy_moore_us_senate_candidate.html)". Not an "extensive rehash" or "gossip" or whatever silly strawman GMG is going to come up with next but instead short, accurate, and encyclopedic. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Quoting the father seems okay, but I’d leave out “On past occasions he has accused police and prosecutors of arresting him to damage his father.” What third party relatives say is just too tangential. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
He's (a) the son, (b) employed in daddy's foundation and campaign (and has been in at least one or the other role at the time of many of the arrests). It's not "tangential". Morty C-137 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

30/500 protection until election?

This page has been full-protected again, now twice this month. Based on the activity of editors such as Geardeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), would it be reasonable to add 30/500 protection through the election on December 12? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely bonkers to fully protect the page. As it stands, there are two newbie accounts (probably the same user) who have in the last 24hrs edit warred a CNN description out of the article with ludicrous edit summaries (one of them citing a supposed policy called WP:REVERTRANNY, which sounds like a cheeky and blatant attempt at vandalism). These edits have rightfully been reverted by at least four seasoned users (and I would have reverted it myself had they not). But now, the page has been fully protected and nobody can edit it. Why? Because IP accounts edit warred? As is so often the case, the problem can simply and fully be solved by semi-protecting the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Except Geardeath was an old enough account it likely was auto-confirmed; so 30/500 may be necessary. Pending Changes clearly isn't enough here. I agree the full protection is ridiculous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Not with the five or so edits they had. Also the important word there is "was". Volunteer Marek  17:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that they were at 10 edits if deleted ones are counted. That user would have worked around auto-confirmed, but it is only one account so far. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. That's another problem right there - the threshold for becoming autoconfirmed is ridiculously low. Volunteer Marek  17:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea why some admins keep doing this. It's becoming a systemic problem on Wikipedia. I'm sure they're well intentioned...  Volunteer Marek  16:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@AlexiusHoratius: Volunteer Marek  17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest making an unprotect request at WP:RPP. The page should not have been fully protected.- MrX 17:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it was requested for full protection by "Fundude99", who doesn't seem to have any history with the article, with a simple summary of "edit warring" and no other background or details. I'm guessing they saw Geardeath and the IP (most likely also Geardeath) doing their thing and sent a simplistic request using some automated tool. Likely well meaning, but it did seem to cause some overkill. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Moore/Archive_1&oldid=1136377865"