Talk:Roger Moore

Interesting Inconsistent Editorializing.

Some discussion upon the subject of the worthiness of added content, and the perceived tediousness of it, or not, as determining a fact's right-of-place in an article, exceeding in importance something which is factually accurate, should be interesting. The removal of a contribution, ie, an Edit, because "Nobody is interested in this kind of stuff", (sic), of a small piece which, after removal previously, by another Editor, had been very flatteringly re-inserted: by a third, yesterday: and, so impressed was he, had actually appended verifying Reference Notes ! , quite beyond my own Editorial abilities : thank you. Some irony was felt, when noticing their too-tedious-to-retain status had been exposed below the too-indispensable-to-discard disputed attribution of Moore's influence upon the development of Magnum chocolate lollies, which was retained above it. To retain to an ever-captivated world within the Article the history of Moore's Foreskin, which it does, raises the philosophical question of the quality of literary choices. Hand-cast Editorial opinion's, or general policies regularly applied could either one be a guide: but not both, not consecutively, surely ? Some discussion should be interesting. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The website Discogs.com is unreliable because readers can change the information. See our guide on the question of unreliable references at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Unreliable sources.

If Roger Moore's musical output is discussed in WP:SECONDARY sources (rather than appearing in plain lists) then it is shown to be important to the topic. So if we want to tell the reader about Moore's various 33 or 45 rpm vinyl discs then each one should be described in the literature. Ideally, the description would give the reader some context, for instance, why was Moore doing this thing, or what did he get from the effort. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The site discogs.org is used in 44,735 Wikipedia articles to date. I note that the guide at WP:NOTRSMUSIC is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy, but the recommendations of a WikiProject. I have no argument with the view that the detail in their entries cannot be taken as necessarily reliable, but I have yet to hear of an incident where it listed an non-existent release. It seems ironic to advise against using Discogs to verify that a release exists, then advise the editor to source directly from the actual album covers and liner notes – how is that any less user-contributed? --RexxS (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Morning. Thanks for the reply. If "The website Discogs.com is unreliable because readers can change the information", then that, too, could stand for a fair description of Wikipaedia, nullifying it's Creators' worthy attempt to establish a truthful record of human history. To mention "Why was Moore doing this thing, or what did he get from the effort", (presumably a charitable donation, money, or professional recognition), allows for any trivia to be introduced, (such as the foreskin matter), so long as it had been "Described in the [foregoing] literature". The Editorial inconsistentcy matter, too, remains, as a website's disqualification for consideration, (here, it's Discogs), because of its "Unreliability", wasn't considered important at all to the other Editor who re-inserted it, leaving the impression of truth relying upon arbitrary judgements of Editorial choice, rather than enjoying it's accepted status as intrinsically fine . However, the discussion's been started, and others now have the opportunity to debate it. Thanks, again, Heath St John (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Time Traveller?

Did he really divorce one spouse and marry another after his death? The dates in the summary box would seem to imply this. Perhaps some thorough date checking might be warranted. 109.148.175.33 (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been corrected. Seaweed (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Portrayed Bond 7 or 8 times?

The first paragraph says he portrayed Bond 7 times but then goes on to say he portrayed Bond a record 8 times, "Moore's Eighth appearances as Bond, from Live and Let Die to A View to a Kill, are the most of any actor in the Eon-produced entries." Am I missing something? There were only 7 appearances, right? Please clarify. Thanks. Mickey Smiths (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been corrected. Seaweed (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

New section on "Animal welfare"

I drastically trimmed this section when it was added, but the author has fully reinstated it, stating that "nothing here is superfluous". It seems to me that the article only requires the basic facts, while the inclusion of Moore's various statements (which are accessible in the cited sources for those who are interested) is inappropriate and unnecessary for the article. --Blurryman (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the recent edit (before my very minor adjustment) is a fair compromise and provides all the important and relevant information on the subject without being excessive. Do weigh in, anyone, if opinions differ. KettleMettle (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Ageism

I want to add a note that explains that Roger Moore's statement about the reason he left the role of James Bond is an ageist offense to many people engaged in relationships with large age differences, please. 2A02:B025:12:F09:F63C:9DD4:EADC:AE4F (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that states anything like that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's just his opinion. You don't have to agree with it, or like it. It's called "free speech". BTW, I'm 80. --Blurryman (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM. The purpose of this talk page is the improvement of the article, not voicing opinions about the subject of the article. If a comment simply states an opinion that is not related to improving the article, other editors are free to remove it. To put it bluntly: There is no free speech on Wikipedia talk pages. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn You seem to have misunderstood my comment, which was directed at the OP and about the opinion expressed by Roger Moore. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Blurryman (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Because of the indentation, I thought your comment was directed at DonQuixote and "his opinion" meant the IP's opinion. Never mind then. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) Chrisahn (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)