![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
This admittedly made me laugh, but it is quite POV. I'm taking it out. -- Saucy Intruder 2 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/?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)
"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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleAP ( talk • contribs) 26 May 2006
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)
The section in question was added again recently. I have taken the liberty of removing it for the following reasons:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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.
Hope this helps. Gigs ( talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
An 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)
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))
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:05, 17 January 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20090602/ARTICLES/906025028?Title=Roy-Moore-enters-race-for-governor{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.al.com/specialreport/?111303moore.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060611/moore.shtmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@ 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. — Fundude99 talk 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
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?
So why do YOU believe that it shouldn't be included?
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.
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.
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.
It applies to honorific titles, which "the Honorable" is.
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.
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)
(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 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?s=12346710When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
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’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 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)
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)
@ AlexiusHoratius: Volunteer Marek 17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
This admittedly made me laugh, but it is quite POV. I'm taking it out. -- Saucy Intruder 2 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/?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)
"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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleAP ( talk • contribs) 26 May 2006
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)
The section in question was added again recently. I have taken the liberty of removing it for the following reasons:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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.
Hope this helps. Gigs ( talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
An 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)
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))
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:05, 17 January 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20090602/ARTICLES/906025028?Title=Roy-Moore-enters-race-for-governor{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.al.com/specialreport/?111303moore.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060611/moore.shtmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@ 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. — Fundude99 talk 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
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?
So why do YOU believe that it shouldn't be included?
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.
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.
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.
It applies to honorific titles, which "the Honorable" is.
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.
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)
(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 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?s=12346710When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
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’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 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)
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)
@ AlexiusHoratius: Volunteer Marek 17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)