Talk:Nathan Moore (English musician)

Kerb-crawling

I've reverted the removal of the kerb crawling conviction; this page doesn't exist for Nathan Moore's convenience and it's absurd that facts about his life should be removed from the article on the grounds that they are "harmful to his career". Sorry. --Hungoverdrawn (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has been subject to occasional removals of references to Moore's kerb-crawling conviction, and their subsequent reversion. Please note that the evidence for this conviction is clearly available in UK public records, as well as from a highly reliable news source (the BBC). Recently Mr Moore himself (or so the account claims) has attempted to delete from this paragraph the sentence that notes that at the time of his trial Moore claimed to have been in a gay relationship for 13 years. The assertion is however supported by the "Contact Music" reference. Note, by the way, that the assertion in the article is that there was a claim of a gay relationship; no evidence beyond people's word was provided to support this claim, but I can't imagine what reason Moore might have had to lie in making such a widely-reported claim, so it seems fair to take it at face value. I have checked other references, and the same claim is reported in those, though the attribution is sometimes to Moore and sometimes to his purported partner. (For example, the Evening Standard: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/former-star-admits-kerb-crawling-6975414.html ). I have therefore reverted the most recent edit (by the account named "Nathan marcellus moore"), and made a correction to the wording of the claim to reflect the ambiguity in the sources. I'd also like to note that I'm rather uncomfortable with people editing their own entries in Wikipedia, or those of people with whom they have a business or personal relationship - it seems to me that it might be difficult to avoid bias in such cases. RomanSpa (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just had to revert another edit seeking to remove the sentence about Moore's reported gay relationship. Could we please discuss this here, rather than just continually deleting something that has reasonable documentation? The article does not assert that Moore was in a gay relationship, merely that he or his purported partner (depending on source) made such a claim at the time. I'll try to check back with this page in a couple of days to review any replies. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done another reversion, for the same reason as before. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this; I do feel it's important that history is not consigned to the Memory Hole... Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And now we have another attempt to remove this information (this time, with the claim that this was a "minor edit"). Would anyone object if I sought a "third party" to look at this dispute? RomanSpa (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Nathan Moore himself may regret the incident, or the relationship, or the lie about it, but it is a valid part of his public story. The article is not a marketing tool for him, it's an encyclopedia. 81.147.141.137 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Any references to the kerb-crawling conviction or previous relationships are routinely removed, apparently for PR reasons rather than issues of fact. As such, this article has little credibility or usefulness.Sah10406 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Managing

The quote about Nathan Moore giving up his management responsibilities is a direct quote from his official website. Please do not keep correcting it. Jud 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• No correction, just relavance. :"Hi everyboad Nathan here" is not encylopedic.

Which should probably read as: <No correction, just relevance: "Hi everybody Nathan here" is not encyclopaedic.> I do not know what the problem was here, but direct quotes, even though they might be incorrectly spelt, should be quoted as they are actually written, if possible by adding a [sic!] right after the mistake (which is the case here). Anyway, I do not want to sound impolite, but I do have something to tell you both: first, quotes may be in fact slightly modified, if it is self-evident that something there is not right, possibly highlighting the edited bit; second, when it comes down to talking about corrections of mistakes, you should be more careful about your spelling, otherwise you risk to be considered as unreliable. OK? Sorry, but some things are NOT better left unsaid... Cheers! --TTZnju 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)