Jump to content

Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)/Archive 1

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

Quantum of Solace

After reading 23skidoo's recent edit I double checked the possibility and noticed that I had apparently missed the part where it implied (in my two sources) that Quantum of Solace was added as a fifth short story. As the article states it was previously published in Cosmo, which doesn't fit the story of the other 4. My mistake. K1Bond007 04:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

For Your Eyes Only (film)

I've removed this section:

"Q Branch was able to re-assemble the car - in burgundy instead of white - and return it to Bond for further use later in the movie."

The red Lotus Esprit is a completely different car from the white one. When Bond says "I see you managed to put the Lotus back together again, Q" I think we can assume he was joking! Jeff Watts 13:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Needless to say, there wasn't a lot of the white one left! (Actually, I need to check my DVD of FYEO- I don't think the first Lotus was white, since I know it looked different than the one in Spy Who Loved Me. I seem to recall it being yellow or something like that.) 23skidoo 04:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It's a different car, thats why. The Spy Who Loved Me car was all white. The one in FYEO was white, but it has a red stripe down the side of it. K1Bond007 05:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting

Each seperate piece of art needs a seperate article. See Revenge of the Sith ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hildebrand Rarity

DOes Bond really "finally comes to the conclusion that Mrs. Krest had murdered him in an act of revenge for the way in which Milton had treated her, although she never admits to committing the crime and Bond never ask" IT never says that in the story, the murdere is left open isnt it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.66.75 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I just finished reading the story a few seconds ago and it doesn't seem to me that he reaches a definite conclusion. --207.102.78.225 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to "the film of the same name." Is there actually a film called "The Hildebrand Rarity"? I think the article means to refer to "For Your Eyes Only." Also, is it right to refer to a "yachtsman antagonist" in that film? ~~NotWillDecker

Quantum of Solace

This link needs to be taken off this page and a fresh Quantum of Solace page started as that's the name of the new Bond film according to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7206997.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.201.167.218 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. A Quantum of Solace page was created when the Bond 22 article was renamed, and any links out there referring to the original short story are specific links to the section of this page, so there should be no confusion happening. 23skidoo (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Move

Since most the the other James Bond novel articles are titled name of book (novel), shouldn't this article be For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) because there was a movie too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor001 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one responds soon, I will move this article. Emperor001 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in Quantum of Solace summary

I just read the short story Quantum of Solace and I must dispute the sentence in the summary reading:

Bond deduces that the dinner companions whom he found so boring were Rhoda and her new husband, and he tells the governor she was much more interesting than he had thought.

Actually, the governor explicitly says that the dinner companions were Rhoda and her new husband, eliciting a laugh from Bond, who reflects inwardly that "suddenly the violent dramatics of his own life seemed very hollow." It would be more accurate to say something like "Bond learns from the governor that the dinner companions ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.203.201 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree so I made the change. Vincent (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The publication overview states that there are no secret agent elements in Quantum of Solace. However at the beginning there is a brief reference to the sabotaging by James Bond of two ships carrying weapons to Cuba.

Somerset Maugham

The article presently states that Quantum of Solace is "told in the style of W Somerset Maugham". Having just read Ashenden I assume this refers specifically to the British Ambassador's after-dinner tale in Chapter 12. I would add this but it would surely count as original research. Is there any source to say that Fleming deliberately modelled his style on Maugham's for this story? Opera hat (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article discussing the similarities between "Quantum of Solace" and the story in Ashenden. Opera hat (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WP:DAILYMAIL

Per broad general consensus - an RFC in 2017, ratified in 2019 - the Daily Mail literally cannot be trusted for any factual claim about anything. Recent WP:RSN discussion shows that - surprising as it may be - we literally cannot rely on the Daily Mail as a reliable source for what is printed in the Daily Mail. (Go and have a look!)

The material I removed would be excellent to have in the article. However, it needs a WP:RS before it can go in Wikipedia. Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The Daily Mail is not an RS. Before restoring it, do we have an RS for this material? @SchroCat: - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Don't be a tiresome little edit warrior. Just like last time when you were disruptive, a replacement was found. It will be here too, but not just because you are edit warring to make it to your own timetable. - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be reverting the material without discussing it in talk, or satisfying WP:BURDEN. There aren't many hard policies at Wikipedia, but that's one of them. Could you please address the issues, rather than appealing to non-policies?
I'm just flagging this at WP:RSN, given you're opting for edit-wars and personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You are the one who breached BRD and STATUSQUO by edit warring, so you feel free to raise it where you please. If you actually bothered to read what I read, you will have noticed that I’ve said I will replace the source, but if you want to keep pushing matters into more disruptive territory, that speaks volumes. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN is policy, WP:DAILYMAIL is strong consensus that has been ratified twice. Please desist in the personal attacks. Using unreliable sources in Wikipedia is a violation of policy - there is no "status quo" policy that says that bad sources need to be kept in, or even that they have some sort of grace period. I removed them, you edit-warred them back in with no justification per the policy WP:BURDEN. I look forward to your usable sources for the material. Please desist in the personal attacks - WP:NPA is also policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
🤦‍♂️ There are no personal attacks, so that's a pony that won't run. The information has been here for several years and does not affect anyone under BLP, so it can remain in place overnight until I get to search for a replacement. Gerard, there are ways and means of doing things, and aggressively pushing the point some time after I first said I would find a replacement is disruptive and sub-standard. Back off and give people space to do what they have said they are going to do. You can carry on with your little crusade elsewhere for a while until I've had a proper chance to search for a replacement. - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Paris

SchroCat is contending that the first reel of the film View to A Kill is not set in Paris as per its namesake short story From A View To A Kill. I contend that it is, and that this is verifiable by watching the film and reading the short story. Anyone else have a view (not necessarily one to a kill)?--feline1 (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have said nothing of the sort, so please do not misrepresent me again. I have said that you need a reliable secondary source that the Paris element in the film is taken from the book. If you do not have a source that makes the connection (as we have done with all the other plot elements listed) then it's simply original research, and it has no place in an encyclopaedic article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not WP:OR as it is not drawing any conclusion. It is simply stating a fact. The reference for that fact *is* the film itself. I mean at this rate you'll be saying it would be "original research" to note that both the film and the short story contain a character called "James Bond". Which they do.--feline1 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is OR. Although both book and film have a connection with Paris (very, very small in the case of the book), that provides no proof that the film's writers decided to base the film in the city because of the book. In order to make that connection, you have to provide a reliable secondary source. As to the connection between book and film having Bond: there are ample sources that state this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to your claim,(as we have done with all the other plot elements listed) there are no sources cited whatsoever in the paragraph that I added mention of Paris to!
Contrary to your claim "(very, very small in the case of the book", the mention of Paris in the short story goes on for several pages, with Bond opining on what Paris is like (restaurants, women, blah blah).
I am not making any "claims" about the psychology and choices of the film's screenplay writers. I am just noting the obvious fact that both the short story and the book feature the setting of Paris. This is a perfectly useful and interesting thing for the article to note. I'm at a loss to understand your attitude, really, but I can see you have history of trolling behavior on this talk page.--feline1 (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting into ridiculous, uncivil, mindless and false accusations of trolling. If you can't be bothered to remain civil, then it's probably best not to post anything; I strongly suggest you read WP:CIVIL. If you're that poor at getting sources, and have to revert to insults without even bothering to look at policies, and understanding what decent standards are, then you have little place on Wikipedia (again I suggest you read WP:OR, rather than just trying to cite it back to me. As to the rest of your lies above, there are sources listed: they are in the body of the text, where they should be, and not in the lead, which should only ever reflect the body (see WP:LEAD, as you seem not to be able to understand this properly) Paris is a tiny part of the plot, with Bond moving out of Paris fairly quickly, so yes, it's small. You have absolutely no idea if the writers consciously chose Paris, and have lazily made an assumption which needs to be backed up by sources. I am at a loss as to understand your attitude: this is not an unsourced fansite or blog, but it looks like you're trying to turn it into one, if you are unwilling to use sources to back up your personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It's clear to me that you are peremptory dick and you can congratulate yourself that you have succeeded in driving away yet another editor from bothering to contributing to the article. Well done.--feline1 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Er...pot-kettle-black. Regardless of who's being a dick, you still need a reliable source that says there's a connection between the Paris scenes in a collection of short stories and the Paris scenes in a movie. There's scenes set in Paris in one story in a short story collection: fact. There's scenes set in Paris at the beginning of a movie: fact. Saying that there's some connection between the two is original research. This is all explained in WP:OR...or a university level course that involves writing term papers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I've already said twice above that I wasn't saying "there's some connection between" (although, by Occam's Razor, this remarkable coincidence would be most easily explained by, er, there being some connection). Doubtless our redoubtable Fleming scholar SchroCat could provide exemplary references for the connection, but is more interested in disruptive snarking. I certainly can't be bothered looking up a reference, because it might take me hours and I'm sure SchroCat would then gleefully revert it with a bitchy sarcastic comment 5 minutes later. This is why people like him ruin Wikipedia by discouraging editors to participate. --feline1 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Could I ask you to assume good faith in your discussion, rather than attacking others yet again? If you had added the information supported by a reliable source it would not have been removed: I would have had no grounds to do so, and would have welcomed the addition. Despite your comment, I do not enjoy having to spend my time educating editors who should know better in the merits of using these sources. In future, perhaps you could use a source up front, rather then whine about "disruptive snarking" and "bitchy sarcastic comment"[s] when someone asks you to try and keep a level of good editing practice? - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't possible to assume good faith with you, as you immediately start making sarcastic editorial comments rather than behaving in a constructive manner, and the previous entry on the Talk page shows you doing exactly the same thing to another editor. So you clearly behave like this a lot.--feline1 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
So, on the basis of insults from a previously disruptive editor you thought you'd just start off by being offensive? I am going to step away from this conversation now, as I don't think that there is anything constructive that can be added: I suggest you do the same. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No, on the basis of the way you have behaved from the start. And no, there isn't anything further constructive that can be added. You've poisoned the well most successfully. Even if I later found dozens of helpful references for the article, I wouldn't bother adding them now, as I am sure you would just remove them out of spite. This is the way you make other people feel. --feline1 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
'"From a View to a Kill" also gave part of its title and the location of Paris.'
That right there says that the movie's location of Paris was based on the book's location of Paris. That's saying that there's a connection between the two. That's original research which requires verification by a reliable source. Your inability or unwillingness to understand this is what's causing the friction. Please study WP:OR.
And I'm sorry that if trying to keep all editors within the rules of writing for an encyclopaedia is discouraging you to participate, but that's your problem which you need to get over. We can help you by explaining such things as original research, reliable source, writing about fiction, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and employing Occam's Razor is an act of original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You're not "sorry if...": you're being sarcastic. Being sarcastic to other editors discourages them from participating.--feline1 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I'm really sorry that you can't or won't understand that an encyclopaedia is not a publisher of original research and that that's the reason that you're discouraged. And the truth of the matter is that understanding this is something only you can change. So it's your problem and your responsibility. The most the rest of us can do is help you to understand, while at the same time keeping original research out of encyclopaedia articles. Basically, encyclopaedias and textbooks are not publishers of original research; they're citers and quoters of original research from reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I've already explained about 4 times now that I wasn't conducting original research, but you continue to misunderstand both my explanation and my edit and also continue to be sarcastic and patronising while claiming not to be, in a transparently insincere fashion. This is most likely because you are an unpleasant personal who enjoys goading strangers on the internet. There's little I can do in response other than be a little bit sick in my mouth.--feline1 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)

In this edit,[1] SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

Please note that a direct quote that purports to be from Daniel Craig must follow our WP:BLP policy. The sourcing for the quote needs to be completely solid, or we cannot use it.

As for [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] we know not to use it as a source in general, and in particular we know that The Daily Mail regularly fabricates direct quotes and even entire interviews that never happened, so removing that citation was correct. See:

But what about [ www.mi6-hq.com ]? Is it a reliable source?

This fan website (that's what they call themselves) appears to be a self-published source. See WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:USINGSPS. A well-respected self-published source, but a self-published source nonetheless.

[2] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[3] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

Other than mi6-hq.com being a self-published fan site, I have to question where mi6-hq.com got that quote.

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). Yes, the same Daily Mail that fabricates quotes.

mi6-hq.com published it[4] on 30 January 2008. It is pretty obvious that some "man or women passionate about the subject" at the fan site simply copied the suspect quote from The Daily Mail.

My conclusion: we should remove the material as failing Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policies.

If anyone has any doubt, just Google "It relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship, you should give up. If you are not respecting each other, it's over." (with the quotes) and try to find out where and when Daniel Craig said that.

Finally, there is another self-published fan site that talks about what the phrase "Quantum of Solace" means. See [ https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/content/quantum-of-solace-what-does-it-mean.htm ] Still not a reliable source but -- Unlike The Daily Mail or any site that parrots them -- at least The James Bond Dossier knows how to crack open a book and see what Ian Fleming actually wrote. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)

In this edit,[5] SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

Please note that a direct quote that purports to be from Daniel Craig must follow our WP:BLP policy. The sourcing for the quote needs to be completely solid, or we cannot use it.

As for [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] we know not to use it as a source in general, and in particular we know that The Daily Mail regularly fabricates direct quotes and even entire interviews that never happened, so removing that citation was correct. See:

But what about [ www.mi6-hq.com ]? Is it a reliable source?

This fan website (that's what they call themselves) appears to be a self-published source. See WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:USINGSPS. A well-respected self-published source, but a self-published source nonetheless.

[6] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[7] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

Other than mi6-hq.com being a self-published fan site, I have to question where mi6-hq.com got that quote.

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). Yes, the same Daily Mail that fabricates quotes.

mi6-hq.com published it[8] on 30 January 2008. It is pretty obvious that some "man or women passionate about the subject" at the fan site simply copied the suspect quote from The Daily Mail.

My conclusion: we should remove the material as failing Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policies.

If anyone has any doubt, just Google "It relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship, you should give up. If you are not respecting each other, it's over." (with the quotes) and try to find out where and when Daniel Craig said that.

Finally, there is another self-published fan site that talks about what the phrase "Quantum of Solace" means. See [ https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/content/quantum-of-solace-what-does-it-mean.htm ] Still not a reliable source but -- Unlike The Daily Mail or any site that parrots them -- at least The James Bond Dossier knows how to crack open a book and see what Ian Fleming actually wrote. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You have made the presumption that MI6-HQ got,their,information from the Mail. Do,you have any evidence of that, or is it just spurious guesswork? As the information is supported by three citations, perhaps you may wish to reconsider your definite statement. One of them, the Associated Press, pre-dates all the sources. Anyway, time I was off doing something a little more useful than pointing out the bloody obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It is your responsibility to provide a citation to a reliable source for the Daniel Craig quote. You have failed to do so. Prove it. You are required to prove it by WP:V. I don't have to prove he didn't say it. You have to prove that he did.
Prove to me that the Associated Press cite or the Aberdeen Press and Journal cite (which is likely from AP) contain the quote you say they contain. As is usual with AP, a lot of newspapers ran the AP story on or around January 24, 2008. See[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], None of them contain the quote. When did Daniel Craig say that? Where did Daniel Craig say that? Who did Daniel Craig say it to?
AGAIN, YOU CLAIM THAT THE MATERIAL YOU INSERTED MULTIPLE TIMES CONTAINS A GENUINE DANIEL CRAIG QUOTE. YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT CLAIM. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There are three sources there that have the information. This is what is required. - SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Fan websites are not acceptable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, why did you delete the information which is still sourced to two reliable sources. Please advise on what is wrong with the remaining sources? - SchroCat (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Same question to Guy Macon: what is wrong with the two sources used to support that quote, both of which contain all the required information, including the quote. - SchroCat (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, other editors are not required to rescue portions of your edits that violate Wikipedia's sourcing policies. You need to redo your edit without the bad source. Nobody else is going to do it for you. This has been explained to you multiple times. This is assuming, of course, that the two references you wish to keep actually contain the Daniel Craig quote that you say they contain. I am still waiting for evidence of that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You need to take a step back and look at what you are doing. The information you reverted in supported to two reliable sources. Two. Both contain the quote. I can't show you the quote: it's from a news data source, but it appears in both sources. And, according to policy, I don't have to show you the source either. I have provided all the information that is required to support its inclusion. SchroCat (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add false tags to this article. The documentation says they are to be used only if four conditions are met. Two of these are "you have checked the source, 3. the source does not support what is contained in the article". Rather obviously you have not even bothered to attempt to check either of the sources, and it is a misrepresentation to claim that I have to prove either of those sources is valid. I physically cannot show you the datasource, so you need to access the information yourself in another method. Try the Library: someone will confirm it for you there. SchroCat (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
So, you claim that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that you edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason you cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it?
Meanwhile, the multiple sources that I could check -- all apparently from the AP with the same title as your sources and all published within a day of them -- did not contain the Daniel Craig quote.
Meanwhile, the person you say authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for The Daily Mail. (!)
Given the above string of unbelievable coincidences, no reasonable person would believe that Daniel Craig ever spoke those words. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I have not claimed that at all - you need to read what I've said properly and stop leaping to the entirely wrong conclusion (one entirely lacking in AGF, I'll add). You need to stop with the fixation on the Mail and look at the sources in front of you. I have explained how you can verify them, and there is little point in continuing this charade if you do not follow the advice and link provided to verify this. I don't care if you can't find the quote elsewhere: I did find it (in a subscription news database—Nexis, if you are that bothered about it) and in two reliable sources. Go and verify it yourself.
Thank you for pointing out the error in Sherna Noah's name, now corrected. When they wrote the piece in January 2008, they were the Showbusiness, Arts and Media Correspondent at the PA; they still work for the organisation, and now hold the position of Senior Entertainment Correspondent. - SchroCat (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat, a version of the quote is also in The Guardian. [15] SarahSV (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Sarah, that's extremely useful. It seems to have been a theme he was playing with variants to different journalists by the looks of things: I altered the search string slightly and came up with this version too. So I suppose a reasonable person would believe that Daniel Craig ever spoke those words! If anyone wants to verify the actual words used in the two quoted sources, they can still visit our library to get verification. I see that no-one has asked yet. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have to prove the publisher actually exists? I can't find on a cursory search the specific term "Aberdeen Press", and though you lot keep talking about AP... there is a definite established news organisation going by AP, but that is not what is referenced in the article... which instead says "Press Association". According to Wikipedia, which specifically says they should not be confused with AP (Associated Press), Press Association stopped using that moniker 3 years before the date they are referenced on this article, ring ring. They are now the PA Media. I tend to have a cautionary view of off-the-cuff news outlets, even the more reliable ones. They are... off the cuff. Not just the ones which are accused and targeted as "tabloids" (a term which means about as much as calling them "A4 size news outlets" or "unfolded newspaper")... But if organisations which make their whole history of publication available freely... do not stand by a particular item... is it reliable? The comment itself, is a bit of a ramble... and hardly definitive of anything about "Quantum of Solace" or Craig, to the extent that I ask why should it be quoted at length verbatim, rather than simply referred to, if indeed it should be referred to? I'm not specifically for or against quoting Daniel Craig in general. I'm not particularly a fan or a disliker of Bond movies. I can't be dead set for or against the Daily Mail through [not having sufficient] experience. I find the presentation of the quote to be confusing. It says the film shares nothing with the short story, but that it also shares the short stories main theme, like Daniel Craig says... Does it? Did he? It's all very mysterious. ~ R.T.G 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has to prove a publisher exists, but our article on the Aberdeen Press and Journal is here. As to the PA, whatever name they go by, they are commonly known as the Press Association (and/or PA). This is the name under which the information is released, which is why I've used it here. As to the quote, Craig was discussing the book and the idea behind the name; I think it warrants inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2020 ::(UTC)
The version given by User:SarahSV has been quoted and quoted and quoted again, since the movie was released. Why was the Daily Mail considered unreliable as a source again? I'm sorry, SchroCat, you are obviously having a personal moment in support of the Daily Mail. It's always been like the Little Times or something. Sensationalism, a.k.a. propagandising, is rampant in Western media. We overlook it because it is not the government directly who gets to guide that sensationalism. It is not part of the political individuals popularity races. But it is part of the popularity races. I don't want to write an inferior essay about propaganda in the western world in order to give an opinion, but our media has gone way down a path to the extent that... is it even safe to stop them? Something superfluous is going on with this Craig quote, and if the article can't say that, it shouldn't give the quote. Can you say what it is all about? Well let's take a look... Here is the other quote... "The title of Fleming's story refers to the nature of relationships and the fact is that if you don't have that quantum of solace in a relationship, then the person hurt the most will resort to a kind of bestial cruelty." Now what is wrong with that? It is speciesist. Much as that isn't to my own ideal, that's the way this world is and covering it up doesn't serve an acknowledgement. So that's my two cents on this issue which isn't really my concern. People call each other pigs all of the time. We use the rhetoric of war as part of the discussion on peace. If there is some sort of raising of awareness on those two last points which affects Wikipedia in some way, you'll likely get a supporting vote from me, but there isn't, and it still wouldn't mark censorship. Go on SchroCat, the sentiment behind the accurate quote follows a good intention. Let him have it, and when society changes its speciesist ways, we will surely look back and say, well language was still filled with a sense of "battle" in those archaic birth-of-the-third-millennium times. ~ R.T.G 12:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "you are obviously having a personal moment in support of the Daily Mail". We're done here. You can troll elesewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)/Archive_1&oldid=1223934959"