Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Same-sex marriage in Alabama#Alabama Policy Institute lawsuit|Alabama Policy Institute proceedings]] The anchor (#Alabama Policy Institute lawsuit) has been deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Statements made about Putin edit quote with additional word[edit]
Article has the quote as 'Moore has strongly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating that he is maybe "more akin to me than I know [myself]".' The addition of the word "[myself]" is not a part of the original quote, nor is it a part of the quote as it appears in either of the cited sources. It also seems to me that it doesn't add to the quote and may change its meaning.
I've deleted it. It's not in any source I've examined. I've given my rationale in the reason-for-edit section, but to repeat: It is semantically empty, syntactically impossible, and pragmatically confusing. JohndanR (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, a few things concerning your revert. First, we don't need to include something in the source if it has nothing to do with the article. The CNN article is one of three sources for the birther claim. I read the article. It's literally all about Trump and doesn't even mention Roy Moore at all. As such, the source is totally irrelevant to the article and should be removed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? The title of the CNN article is GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore has said he doesn't believe Obama is a natural-born citizen. The article then goes on to say:
"Moore's comments came three months after then-Republican nominee Donald Trump conceded that Obama was born in the US after pushing the racially charged birther conspiracy for years. Trump endorsed Moore's opponent Sen. Luther Stranger during the Republican primary and congratulated both candidates on proceeding to the runoff." — CNN
Wow. What sort of drug are you on? The title of the article, source 23, is, Report: Trump continues to question Obama's birth certificate. I have no clue where you pulled that article from. But it should've been pretty obvious that this was the article I was talking about considering the fact that it comes after the sentence in question. Display name 99 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not very good drugs because you're still giving me a headache (Bazinga!). Cite #21 is for a The Hill article that cites the CNN article in the relevant section.- MrX 🖋 17:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad comeback, but the "Bazinga" sort of downgraded it. Anyway, so one of the three sources links to a source which mentions Trump. Do you have any idea how long our articles would be if we included everything not only in the sources but in articles linked to by the sources? Can you explain to me how that's relevant and why we need to include it? Display name 99 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hear from other editors. I will not revert again because I don't consider it an especially important bit of information.- MrX 🖋 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look above at the section "Birtherism." One editor already raised his concern over it. I'll wait a while longer, but if in, say, 12 hours, nobody else comments here, I'm probably going to make the edit myself. Doing so would also involve removing the CNN article that I erroneously thought you were referring to originally because it fails to mention Roy Moore. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source 23 should be removed because it doesn't discuss Moore. Moore's doubt about Obama's eligibility is lede-worthy because he went beyond others who also expressed doubts -- his doubts appeared in a court's opinion. --Weazie (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weazie, I'm removing that source based on your comment. However, nobody here is saying that Moore's doubt about Obama's eligibility should be taken out of the lead. The question is over whether Trump's birtherism is worthy of being mentioned as in the phrase "along with Trump." I say no. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...which promoted the false claim that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States" Should not state [false], this should be struck.[edit]
Stating "false" here is a definitive statement and one can not make such a claim about this. The argument I have is in saying the claim is false. It's fair to say he "promoted the claim" but not fair to state true or false about this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binary Agent (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a false claim. It has been proven to be a false claim. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The White House release an image of a certified copy of the long form birth certificate. What more do you want? Meters (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous reliable sources have said the said the claim is false; that's all wikipedia requires. --Weazie (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article has a problem with persistent vandalism, but not frequent enough to qualify for semi-protection, I have installed Pending Change protection for 6 months. Hopefully that will allow us to keep it under control. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous news outlets are reporting this: should there not be a mention somewhere in the article of the lawsuit and possibly the originating incident?
The BBC[1], CNN[2], the Guardian[3], the New York Times[4], the Washington Post[5], even Vanity Fair[6]!
I thought about adding this material, but the reality is this lawsuit will likely be dismissed. Filing a losing lawsuit may not be article worthy, especially considering how long it already is. Weazie (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, it's not in the Sacha Baron Cohen article. I'd say that's a better spot. It's well covered. But,as such lawsuits are routinely dismissed, I'd wait before adding here. Then again, I wouldn't argue against an addition. O3000 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this today and agree in principle. But, I'm struggling to come up with NPOV text from one source. Any suggestions? O3000 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the article describes Moore as "an advocate of far-right politics, including segregation". While the sources supplied certainly justify far-right, the only mention of segregation in any of them is the mere fact that George Wallace won the state on a segregation platform. So far as I can tell, none of them include even the suggestion that Moore endorses it, much less proof. Unless someone can find it in there, I'd suggest removing the "including segregation". 135.180.163.113 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through a lot of sources. He has a lot of support from and connections to white supremacists; but I can't find a good source that comes right out and calls him a segregationist. He did come out against an anti-segregation amendment; but said it was the taxing part that bothered him and that it wasn't needed as the courts had settled it. I don't like the explanation -- but it's plausible. I removed it. O3000 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the affected diff from September 2020. I think this content ought to be reinstated. Moore advocated against removing a provision from the state constitution that mandated segregated schools (albeit this has no effect unless current federal rulings prohibiting segregation were to be overturned). The content just says that he advocated segregation, I suppose we don't know what he thinks at this moment, we can always put this in historical perspective, and we can attribute a statement if there's some objection that the source is not properly neutral. Fabrickator (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a low quality screenshot of an interview from YouTube used instead of an official portrait (public domain)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamalkemal (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: