Jump to content

Talk:Ian Fleming/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Number of months holiday at Goldeneye year

This article and List of James Bond novels and short stories say "His contract allowed him to take three months holiday every winter in Jamaica".Lycett, Andrew (2004). "Fleming, Ian Lancaster (1908–1964)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/33168. Retrieved 3 December 2011. (subscription or UK public library membership required)

The Goldeneye (estate) article says "Fleming negotiated a contract with his employers, The Times whereby he could spend January and February of each year at Goldeneye; and on 17 February 1952 James Bond first appeared on his typewriter in the first novel, Casino Royale."[Fleming, Jamaica (1946 - 1964) | http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=219]

The first source is behind a paywall and so I don't know what the exact wording used for how they reported the number of months and if "three months holiday" is an accurate interpretation of that wording. My public library has a paywalled biography that says "He built a home in Jamaica, where he would retreat for the first few months of each year to work on his next novel, and he continued producing the Bond stories for more than a decade." (Source: Cyclopedia of World Authors, Fourth Revised Edition with this article entry written by Paul Dellinger).

I'm wondering if there is a UK convention for counting months. For example, Casino_Royale (novel) says "Fleming started writing on his book at his Goldeneye estate in Jamaica on 17 February 1952, typing out 2,000 words in the morning, directly from his own experiences and imagination.[24] He finished work on the manuscript in just over two months,25 completing it on 18 March 1952.26" 17 February 1952 to 18 March 1952 is one month and one day or 31 days. Calling it "just over two months" seems puzzling to me though [25] states "in not much more than two months". --Marc Kupper|talk 15:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia. It is a public noticeboard of information on all things on the planet and can be consulted for easy and satisfactorily authoritative reference. It is a wall of general knowledge.
General knowledge contains the simple fact that Ian Fleming had a contract with his employers that he could spend two months of each year between January and March off the job.
Everybody knows { general knowledge } that he spent the time in Jamaica.
Two months from the beginning of January have a duration to the beginning of March, from the end of January to the end of March, or anywhere in between the beginning of January to the end of March. The month of January is thirty-one days, February 28 or 29 days and February thirty-one days. Two months might be expected to be in those months a consideration of each length of each month.
General knowledge does not contain an understanding. But I understand indeed from very general reading that work on Casino_Royale (novel) was completed in England. Which I would very well be satisfied to believe accommodated the termination date 18 March 1952. --Laurencebeck (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The DNB source states that "He negotiated a favourable contract, allowing him to take three months' holiday every winter in Jamaica", which is what our article has, so the wording is entirely appropriate as it stands - and "the first few months of each year" doesn't doubt that. The wrting dates do not affect the length of holiday: he would not necessarily work over the entire holiday, and many of his books were of differing lengths (213 to 318 pages), so he would have spent less time on some years than others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuation authors, James Bond.

Anyone really interested in a subject will most likely check the Talk section of a Wikipedia article for some portion of information that might be excluded form the main article.

It can certainly be the case with the legacy of Ian Fleming.

Starting with Kingsley Amis' Colonel Sun, under the pseudonym "Robert Markham" in 1968, [ www.ianfleming.com/the-books/colonel-sun/ ] several authors have been commissioned to write Bond novels. John Gardner was the first to serve as a regular "continuation" author, writing fourteen original novels and two film novelizations. He was followed by Raymond Benson, who wrote six original novels and three novelizations. Other writers to tackle official Bond novels include Christopher Wood, Charlie Higson and Jeffrey Deaver. In observance of what would have been Fleming's 100th birthday in 2008, it was Sebastian Faulks who was asked by Ian Fleming Publications to write a new Bond novel.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6289186.stm ]

There are the continuation writers in greater detail than in the most recent edit which, in the main, edited them out from the very interesting previous edit. --Laurencebeck (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Or they could read the same information at James Bond#Post-Fleming novels, which shows all the authors and their books, or even at List of James Bond novels and short stories#Post-Fleming James Bond novels, which also lists all the relevant information. I think that is people are coming to find the continuation Bond authors, they are more likely to look there than they are at the Fleming article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree. This is ultimately an article about Ian Fleming, not James Bond. Presumably if people are interested in who else wrote James Bond novels they will read the James Bond articles. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Primarily it is an article about Ian Fleming. --Laurencebeck (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is - and what's your point? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Betty and Schro, details about the continuation novels makes sense for the James Bond article, but it's peripheral to the Ian Fleming article -- it's enough to say here that other authors continued to write books based on Fleming's creation, we don't need a list. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Not primarily, it is an article about Fleming. James Bond was a huge part of his life so we cover how it relates to his life, but not to other people, unless they relate to Fleming's life in some way too. We link to James Bond and the novels in the lede, we link to them again in the "Works" section, and we also have a collapsible template at the bottom of the article listing every Bond novel and author; I honestly think that is sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I should imagine so. LB--Laurencebeck (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Jonas Vinther

Although it was promoted to Featured Article in 2012, the article is still of a brilliant standard, but I have some comments and suggestions for improvements.

  • "Educated at Eton, Sandhurst, and the universities of Munich and Geneva" - The main text of the article says he only briefly studied at Munich and Geneva universities and this kind of implies the opposite. I suggest adding "briefly at" between "and" and "the".
  • "Fleming was involved in planning Operation Goldeneye and in the planning" - Why mention "planning" twice? How about "Fleming was involved in planning Operation Goldeneye and in the process".
  • Because "planning Operation Goldeneye and in the process" doesn't make sense. We have two things going on here: Fleming planning Goldeneye, and Fleming involved in the planning and oversight of two intelligence units. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The novels revolved around James Bond, an officer in the Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6" - I recommend changing "an officer in the Secret Intelligence Service" to "an officer in the British Secret Intelligence Service" to avoid confusion.
  • "Bond was also known by his code number, 007, and was a commander in the Royal Naval Reserve" - There are still Bond movies and adventures in production and the novels are still being sold and read so shouldn't it be "is" instead of "was"?
  • "He was married to Ann Charteris, who was divorced from the second Viscount Rothermere as a result of her affair with Fleming" - So far the article has not mentioned that Fleming had an affair with Charteris and by saying "her affair with Fleming" it sounds like the reader is supposed to know about the affair. I haven't got a suggestions for an alternative, but recommend it's reformulated.
  • "Fleming and Charteris had a son, Caspar" - The previous sentenced ended with "Fleming" so starting off this sentence also with "Fleming" seems inappropriate. I suggest reformulating to "The couple had a son, Caspar". Also, consider mentioning what year Caspar was born in.
  • Funnily enough, it was that way in the original version (pre-first FAC), but people complained that "couple" could easily be read as Rothermere and Charteris. I'm not sure about the year: it's in the main text and I'm not sure we need that level if detail in the lead (we don't mention when he was married, for example. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ian Fleming was born on 28 May 1908, at 27 Green Street in the wealthy London district of Mayfair" - if you start of the article with "Ian Fleming" and not just "Fleming" I would suggest mention his full name: Ian Lancaster Fleming.
  • Not really needed: I think it's common practice to use the person's "normal" name, rather than the extended version here, but I'm not sure the MoS is overly-prescriptive on the point - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "at 27 Green Street in the wealthy London district of Mayfair" - Link London.
  • "His mother was Evelyn St Croix Rose, and his father was Valentine Fleming" - This comes off as a rather lax wording! I suggest merging this sentence with the first and changing it to "Ian Fleming was born on 28 May 1908, at 27 Green Street in the wealthy London district of Mayfair, to the couple Evelyn St Croix Rose and Valentine Fleming".
  • "the Member of Parliament for Henley from 1910" - I recommend replacing "from" with "since".
  • "Fleming was the grandson of the Scottish financier Robert Fleming" - Which Fleming are we talking about here? The paragraph started off with "Ian Fleming", but the next sentence reads "Valentine Fleming". When referring to people with the same last name in the same section I recommend using their Christian names like the article later does so as to avoid confusion like this.
  • As per the MoS, the surname is used for the subject of the article: others are referred to in other ways.
  • "with the start of the first world war" - Shouldn't "first world war" be "First World War"?
  • "and rose to the rank of major" - Link major.
  • "(1907–1971)", "(1913–1940)", "(1911–1977)" and "(1911–1977)" should be written in accordance with MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:DATERANGE.
  • As I explained when you asked the same question on my talk page, "NUMERAL doesn't cover individuals: MOS:DOB does". - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war" - Link Norway during World War II and Greece during World War II.
  • Norway is Norwegian Campaign: the 62-day Nazi invasion, so not relevant; a skim through the other connected articles doesn't show anything obvious, but do you any other suggestion on the link? I've done the link for Greece, but it's close to being an easter egg, and looks very odd without a link for Norway. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "some six years after the death of Valentine Fleming" - There is really no need for the "Fleming" addition here as the article has already established "Valentine" refers to "Valentine Fleming".
  • "a preparatory school on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset" - Link Dorset.
  • "He did not enjoy his time at Durnford" - I see this as unnecessary repetition. I recommend changing it to "He did not enjoy his time at there".
  • "he suffered unpalatable food, physical hardship and bullying" - This sentence is somewhat confusion and raises some questions. Firstly, I recommend adding the word "from" before "suffered". Secondly, how can you understandably suffer from unpalatable food? I don't think mentioning that he didn't like the school's food is that important or relative, seems immaterial. I suggest changing this sentence to "he suffered from physical hardship and bullying" and if the food-bit must be included I suggest "he suffered from physical hardship, bullying and disliked the food".
  • This may be a BrEng thing, but as you've already criticised your own recommendation of "suffer from unpalatable food", then you already know the "from" is unnecessary. – SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "his mother sent him to the Tennerhof in Kitzbühel, Austria" - I appears the "the" addition should not be included in this sentence.
  • "His mother again intervened in his affairs, lobbying Sir Roderick Jones, head of Reuters News Agency. In October 1931 he was given a position as a sub-editor and journalist for Reuters" - Is there no way to connect these two sentences? How about "His mother again intervened in his affairs, lobbying Sir Roderick Jones, head of Reuters News Agency, and Fleming was given a position as a sub-editor and journalist for Reuters".
  • "In 1933 Fleming spent time in Moscow" - Link Moscow.
  • "he applied for an interview with Soviet premier Joseph Stalin" - Stalin was not premier, he was dictator. If you prefer the official title, go with General secretary.
  • "and was amazed to receive a personally signed note apologising for not being able to attend" - Firstly, "apologizing" is spelled with a Z not S. Secondly, what do you mean by writing "not being able to attend"? Attend what? The interview? Are we sure this is what the note said? I can understand you would decline a dinner or party invitation by saying "I won't be able to attend", but an interview? If the note simply said Stalin wasn't available for the interview I suggest writing "and was amazed to receive a personally signed note apologizing for not being able to do the interview".
  • "Early in 1939, Fleming began an affair with Ann O'Neill (née Charteris), who was married to the 3rd Baron O'Neill; she was also having an affair with Esmond Harmsworth, the heir to Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail" - Is there no information on when and why the affair ended? Seems weird to go in detail without mentioning how it ended.
  • "He joined the organisation full time in August 1939" - Like apologizing, "organization" is spelled with a Z. Also, why "organization"? A term like "military branch" or word like "navy" seems more appropriate.
  • No, the spelling is correct in BrEng. It is also an organisation (he didn't join the navy, he joined the NID, a section of the Admiralty – in other words a government job)
  • "Fleming's biographer, Andrew Lycett, notes that Fleming had "no obvious qualifications" for the role" - Then why did he get the job? Did his mother or family ensure it? Did he buy his way in? If Lycett in fact mentions that Fleming had no obvious qualifications then surely he must have mentioned some reason or guess as to why he did acquire the position.
  • "On 29 September 1939, soon after the start of the war" - World War Two officially started, at least for Britain, on 3 September. 29 September is almost a month later so I suggest writing "On 29 September 1939, nearly a month after the start of the war".
  • "Number 28 on the list" - We've just been told twice that it was a memo so how about writing "Suggestion 28 of the memo".
  • "this suggestion is similar to Operation Mincemeat" - I recommend replacing "this" to "the".
  • "Kenneth Mason, Professor of Geography at Oxford University" - Link Oxford University.
  • "a plan aimed at obtaining details of the Enigma codes used by Nazi Germany's navy" - Enigma was used by all parts of the German military and also other government agencies, not just the navy.
  • The various branches of Germany military (and indeed their political machinery which also used Enigma) used different systems and different codes. The naval codes were the key ones here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "English Channel" - Link English Channel.
  • "Much to the annoyance of Alan Turing and Peter Twinn at Bletchley Park" - Consider briefly mentioning what extremely important work the British and Americans conduced at Bletchley.
  • "an official at the Royal Air Force" - I recommend changing "at" with "of" and the current word doesn't quite flow.
  • "intelligence co-operation between London and Washington" - Link Washington.
  • "Godfrey put Fleming in charge of Operation Golden Eye" - It's "Operation Goldeneye" not "Operation Golden Eye".
  • "a plan to maintain an intelligence framework in Spain" - Link Spain.
  • "launching sabotage operations against the Nazis" - Link Nazism.
  • "In 1941, Fleming liaised with Donovan over American involvement in a measure intended to ensure that the Germans did not dominate the seaways" - This addition describes an event from 1941 so it should mentioned before the Godfrey-putted-Fleming-in-charge-of-Operation-Goldeneye part.
  • "and lock-picking at the SOE facilities" - Link Special Operations Executive.
  • "In late 1942 Captain (later Rear-Admiral) Edmund Rushbrooke" - The "(later Rear-Admiral)" addition strikes me as very much WP:OFFTOPIC.
  • "Before the Normandy landings" - Consider mentioning the Normandy landings was in 1944.
  • "operations were in the Mediterranean" - Link Mediterranean.
  • "Because of its successes in Sicily and Italy" - Link Sicily and Italy.
  • "and followed the unit into Germany" - link Germany.
  • "Fleming visited 30AU in the field during and after Operation Overlord" - No need for the "Operation" addition as we've already been told that was an operation.
  • "Fleming was replaced as head of 30AU on 6 June 1944" - 6 June 1944 was the date for Overlord. Should be mentioned before the part about Fleming following the unit into Germany.
  • "Much of the trip was spent identifying opportunities for 30AU in the Pacific" - Link Pacific.
  • "although the unit ultimately saw little action because of the Japanese surrender" - Link Japanese surrender, it's a featured article!
  • "targets of interest for the British military" - Link British Armed Forces.
  • "an Anglo-American intelligence summit in Jamaica" - Link Jamaica.
  • "despite the constant heavy rain during his visit" - Really no need for the "the" addition here.
  • "Fleming himself mentioned both his wartime Operation Golden Eye" - Again, it's "Goldeneye" not "Golden Eye".
  • The "Post-war" section has a great deal of information on his wedlock so consider changing the title to something like "Post-war and marriage".
  • The quote in the "1950s" section is not sourced.
  • "Fleming's red-haired secretary at The Times" - The article Miss Moneypenny does not mention Moneypenny had red-hair so mentioning that seems completely unnecessary.
  • "I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard" - The "()" should be replaced with "[]".
  • "and admitted that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war" - The quote starts too early; should first start at "a compound ...
  • "intelligence agent based in Budapest" - Link Budapest.
  • "who took the Orient Express from Budapest to Paris in February 1950" - Link Paris.
  • "The book received mixed reviews in the UK and US" - Link United Kingdom and United States.
  • "Mr Fleming has no literary skill" - "Mr" should be written as "Mr."
  • "After two court actions, the second in November 1961, Fleming offered McClory a deal" - I recommend changing this sentence to "After two court actions (the second in November 1961) Fleming offered McClory a deal".
  • "while staying at a hotel in Canterbury" - Link Canterbury.
  • "Eco also noted that the Bond villains tend to come from Central Europe or from Slavic or Mediterranean countries" - Link Central Europe and Slavic people.
  • "Jeremy Black divides the series based on the villains Fleming created" - Who the hell is Jeremy Black? A friend? A fellow author? A journalist? A biographer?
  • "Jeremy Black points to the defections of four members of MI6 to the Soviet Union" - Link Soviet Union.
  • The article reads "Fleming's biographer Andrew Lycett" three times. Once you have explained that he is Fleming's biographer and stated his full name, simply write "Lycett" when referring to him. This also goes for Jeremy Black, once his full name is stated just write "Black".
  • "while the CIA and MI6" - Link CIA.
  • "his was the new world of a non-colonial, independent Jamaica" - Link History of Jamaica.
  • "Bond's target in Casino Royale, Le Chiffre" - Link Le Chiffre.
  • "as Communist influence in the trade unions" - Link Trade Union.
  • "but Fleming did not focus on this directly, instead creating "an impression of the normality of British imperial rule and action" - The quote begins too early; should begin until "impression ...
  • "Anglo-American war against communism" - Link Communism.
  • "British warship, HMS Narvick" - Link List of tank landing ships#Royal Navy (United Kingdom).
  • "Geoffrey Jenkins had suggested to Fleming that he write a Bond novel set in South Africa" - Link South Africa.

Hope all this can help. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. There are a number of issues with several of the points you raise, and sorting the wheat from the chaff in a wall of text is not something I can face now. The linking in the article is fine, and most of your suggested links would fail WP:OVERLINKING (we don't link common terms, like the UK, US, S Africa, Paris etc) The date ranges are in line with the MoS, and "apologising" and "organisation" are spelt with an S in British English (this is just a selection of some of the recurring issues in your thread). There are several other things that are not suitable, but there are a few good points in there too. When I have the energy to work my way through the long string to pick out those good points, I'll address them. - SchroCat (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Jonas, speaking as one of the reviewers at the article's FAC, I think there are several good suggestions there, although some might be considered a matter of taste. For example "(later Rear-Admiral)" re. Edmund Rushbrooke may not be necessary if Rushbrooke had a WP article, but is probably fair enough given that he doesn't. The main concern I have is the potential for overlinking. I think most readers would have heard of trade unions and communism for instance, and there’s no need to link modern countries like France, the US, the UK, Germany, etc. Linking obsolete political entities like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, East Germany or Yugoslavia is generally considered useful though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat, when you find the time to look through the comments just ping me when you wish to discuss something, I'll happily do that. Regarding WP:OVERLINKING, I agree (now that I understand not all things need links) that many of my comments about linking can be ignored, but I still feel there is quite a few which are still valid. And Ian, I agree that some of the comments can be considered a matter of taste, but I also write things like "I recommend" or "I would suggest" so as to be clear that it's just a suggestions and not things I categorize as errors. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
My first sweep of 'knock-outs' is interlinked above. I think the rest probably all have some merit, but my time is limited this morning, and I'll have to go through them later. Ian, do you agree with these, or are there any you think should be actioned? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat, am I correct in assuming those points you have not responded to will be implemented? And regarding the unsourced quote, I am talking about the one on the right in the beginning in a quote box. Also I don't understand why you say that linking London is WP:OVERLINKING when London is not linked anywhere in the article? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'll probably enact them, although I want to look at them a little more closely first, as there are a couple I still have doubts about and want to think through first. Those comments I have not responded to all have merit, but I need to judge them a little better first (but will probably make edits along the lines you've suggested for most of them). The quote is sourced to some extent: it's the opening lines of the novel, but an line citation can, of course, be added, although I'm not entirely sure it's needed. Overlinking isn't just about having multiple links: have a look at the guidelines on this ("the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; common occupations; and pre- and post-nominals"). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Responding to both the preceding comments, quite a few editors do consider linking major cities like London, Paris, Washington, etc, to be overlinking. Myself, I link every city, big or small, to be consistent but I don't seek to impose that practice in articles where I'm not the major contributor. As an aside, I notice First and Second World Wars are linked and I consider that overlinking as they're such well-known and wide-ranging conflicts, but again I wouldn't seek to impose my preference. Bottom line then, Schro, I'd say I'm in general agreement with all your responses. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Jonas, All the relevant ones are now sorted. On reflection there were a few that didn't need sorting out, but I've covered all that do. Ian - I agree on the war links, so I've dropped those. I'm happy to chat through anything here that people disagree with. I've given my thoughts above for not doing something, but if you disagree, please let me know! Cheers to both - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
There was some very good comments in that mini review Jonas Vinther, thanks very much! Cassiantotalk 22:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Glad I could help. And SchroCat, regarding the Norwegian-Greece links, the fact that it looks stupid is, to me, another reason to add it. I don't think linking the article should depend on how long it lasted. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. Peter Fleming wasn't involved in the Norwegian Campaign, which is what Norway during World War II points to, so I left it unlinked for now, and asked if you know of a more appropriate link. We have the following there now: "...behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war". What looks stupid is having Norway unlinked and Greece linked. The link for Greece looks like a link to the article on Greece, rather than the war history. I can tweak this to link over "Greece during the war", but if we add a link to Norway, that will only link on one word and look like a link to the country, not it's war history. That's all very garbled, but you get the gist. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When you put it that like that, maybe we should just remove the Greece link? Also, are you absolutely sure link Special Operations Executive is ... overlinking? I that something everybody knows or is expected to know about? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, SOE is already listed further up the page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thought you meant it was overlinking because it was known like London, Washington etc. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OMHSS vs. YOLT

The article currently reads "Connery's depiction of Bond affected the literary character; in You Only Live Twice, the first book written after Dr. No was released, Fleming gave Bond a sense of humour and Scottish antecedents that were not present in the previous stories". This is just not the truth. Fleming gave Bond Scottish ancestry in OMHSS. It is mentioned when he visits the College of Arms in that novel, not in YOLT. However the objection raised to correcting the article is that Fleming wrote OHMSS while Dr. No was being filmmed in early 1962, not after it. But that is only half true. Fleming wrote the first draft of each novel during his yearly holiday in Jamaica, but he wrote all subsequent drafts and re-writes after he returned to London until each novel was published the next year. OHMSS was published in April 1963, six months after Dr. No was released in October 1962. Thus, OHMSS was the first Fleming novel after the Dr. No. So in the interests of total accuracy I suggest the passage be changed to "Connery's depiction of Bond affected the literary character; in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the first book published after Dr. No was released, Fleming gave Bond a sense of humour and Scottish antecedents that were not present in the previous stories". SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a few problems with the OHMSS-influenced-by-No argument. The first is that the sources don't back it up (viz the Macintyre reference); secondly is that Fleming was writing OHMSS while they were filming Dr No, and the final copy of the book was with the publishers before the film came out (according to Lycett, p. 409); thirdly is that Fleming was not enamoured with Connery (from memory he dismissed him as an 'overgrown stuntman', or similar); fourthly, and I'll need to dig out the reference here, Fleming was in contact with a Scottish ancestry expert, discussing a possible Scottish background to Bond before he started writing OHMSS, and was therefore unaffected by Connery's portrayal. It boils down to not using OR in making the connections between the various books and films. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
So if OHMSS wasn't influenced by Dr. No then I guess Fleming mentioning Ursula Andress in OHMSS is just a big coincidence. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Also if as you state "Fleming was in contact with a Scottish ancestry expert, discussing a possible Scottish background to Bond before he started writing OHMSS, and was therefore unaffected by Connery's portrayal", then the whole passage that Connery's performance affected the literary character is false and should be completely deleted. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
A few words could be tweaked, that is all. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
More that just some tweaking. The entire part about Bond's Scottish heritage should be removed since it wasn't first mention in YOLT as the passage states but was first mentioned in OHMSS. And since, as you state, Fleming was researching this before he started writing OHMSS; Connery's performance didn't affect this aspect of the literary character. The passage should be revised as such: "Connery's depiction of Bond affected the literary character; in You Only Live Twice, the first book written after Dr. No was released, Fleming gave Bond a sense of humour that were not present in the previous stories". SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, tweaked, by the removal of three words. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Full stop and comma inside or outside quotes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing off: Article has been tweaked and the problem no longer exists. Enough time, effort and KB have been waster on something so infinitesimally small, and of so little use to the readers. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a dispute now between User:Anomalocaris and User:SchroCat on the placement of periods inside or outside quotes. Both parties claim that MOS:LQ supports their position. (The relevant paragraph there reads: "Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside.") Here are the disputed uses:

Anomalocaris SchroCat Sentence ends concide? Comment
"T-Force = Target Force, to guard and secure documents, persons, equipment, with combat and Intelligence personnel, after capture of large towns, ports etc. in liberated and enemy territory". "T-Force = Target Force, to guard and secure documents, persons, equipment, with combat and Intelligence personnel, after capture of large towns, ports etc. in liberated and enemy territory." No (but see comment) If the equals sign were considered the verb of a sentence, period could be inside.
"so far as I can see the element of suspense is completely absent." "so far as I can see the element of suspense is completely absent". Yes
"It struck me that this brief, unromantic, Anglo-Saxon and yet very masculine name was just what I needed, and so a second James Bond was born." "It struck me that this brief, unromantic, Anglo-Saxon and yet very masculine name was just what I needed, and so a second James Bond was born". Yes
"I have just finished what is, without doubt, the nastiest book I have ever read." "I have just finished what is, without doubt, the nastiest book I have ever read". Yes
"by the time I was a third of the way through, I had to suppress a strong impulse to throw the thing away." "by the time I was a third of the way through, I had to suppress a strong impulse to throw the thing away". Yes
"Ian's mood of weariness and self-doubt was beginning to affect his writing," which can be seen in Bond's thoughts. "Ian's mood of weariness and self-doubt was beginning to affect his writing", which can be seen in Bond's thoughts. No, containing sentence continues Anomalocaris concedes that SchroCat is correct here because the outer sentence continues.
"There is not a moment, even on the edge of the tomb, when I am not slaving for you." "There is not a moment, even on the edge of the tomb, when I am not slaving for you". Yes
"received polite and rather sad reviews, recognising that the book had effectively been left half-finished, and as such did not represent Fleming at the top of his game". "received polite and rather sad reviews, recognising that the book had effectively been left half-finished, and as such did not represent Fleming at the top of his game." No, quote is fragment
"Fleming did not use class enemies for his villains instead relying on physical distortion or ethnic identity ... Furthermore, in Britain foreign villains used foreign servants and employees ... This racism reflected not only a pronounced theme of interwar adventure writing, such as the novels of Buchan, but also widespread literary culture." "Fleming did not use class enemies for his villains instead relying on physical distortion or ethnic identity ... Furthermore, in Britain foreign villains used foreign servants and employees ... This racism reflected not only a pronounced theme of interwar adventure writing, such as the novels of Buchan, but also widespread literary culture". Yes
"attempt to reflect the disturbing moral ambiguity of a post-war world that could produce traitors like Burgess and Maclean". "attempt to reflect the disturbing moral ambiguity of a post-war world that could produce traitors like Burgess and Maclean." No, quote is fragment
"the loyalty Bond feels towards his friends is as strong as his commitment to his job." "the loyalty Bond feels towards his friends is as strong as his commitment to his job". Yes
"Bond sighed wearily. Once more into the breach, dear friend! This time it really was St George and the dragon. And St George had better get a move on and do something." "Bond sighed wearily. Once more into the breach, dear friend! This time it really was St George and the dragon. And St George had better get a move on and do something". Yes
Black notes that the image of the "latter-day St. George, ... [is] an English, rather than British image". Black notes that the image of the "latter-day St. George, ... [is] an English, rather than British image." No, quote is fragment
"the central paradox of the classic Bond stories is that, although superficially devoted to the Anglo-American war against communism, they are full of contempt and resentment for America and Americans." "the central paradox of the classic Bond stories is that, although superficially devoted to the Anglo-American war against communism, they are full of contempt and resentment for America and Americans". Yes

I propose to revert to the latest version by Anomalocaris except for SchroCat's version in "Ian's mood of weariness and self-doubt was beginning to affect his writing", and if there is no further discussion, that is what I will do. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC) (Updated in italics to quote from MOS:LQ and add a column to the table: Anomalocaris (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC))

"I propose to revert to the latest version by Anomalocaris": errr... no: that would be a rather odd and massively arrogant step to take, to unilaterally decide 'I'm right, bollocks to the rest of you'! I tell you what, how about I propose to retain to the latest version by SchroCat: would you be happy with that, or would you think such a step would ignore your thoughts a little too much? If you were a little less condescending in your approach, and hadn't edit warred with the certainty of being "correct" I might want to start a discussion now, but your approach has pissed me off too much to bother this evening. All I will ask instead, is how many of these sources do you have to hand? - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
User:SchroCat: My proposal was just that, a proposal. I said I would execute the proposal if there is no further discussion, which I believe would have been proper under such circumstances. I do not understand why I am accused of edit warring. I reverted only once, at 20:18, 16 December 2014. If one reversion is edit warring, please show me where it says this. I have modified my earlier posting here of 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC), to quote the relevant paragraph from MOS:LQ and to add a column to the table headed "Sentence ends concide?" This column is intended to indicate if the MOS:LQ condition for placing the terminal punctuation inside the quotation mark is satisfied. I welcome your thoughts on this. — Anomalocaris (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring is simple: your edit was. Reverted (both your edit and the revert was correct, but anything after that is warring. See WP:BRD for the basics on this: it's not difficult and most people have grasped it. As to the rest, I will check the sources and reply at some point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
User:SchroCat: Your comments are welcome and encouraged, but edit your own comments, not mine. I created this section, and I chose an American English heading. Leave it that way. Please continue to share your thoughts on this topic, in your own paragraphs with your own signature. Have a nice day. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
You really are quite obnoxious, aren't you. Do not delete my comments ever again: you could have moved them, but to delete something that points out when you are making up rules to support your pointless entry here is below the belt. As to the title, any editor may change a title: you do not own the thread or the title. Your instance on the "period" point may be a clue to part of the problem here. This is written in British English. You obviously are not British, and this is written in British English, and I am happy that the punctuation is correct on that score. I will still check the sources, and note that you have not bothered to answer my question above. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, can you stop edit warring on the very misleading column titles. To claim it is "my" version is to uncivilly infer ownership. It is not the case. "Extant version" adequately summarises the point of the article that went through PR and FAC and has remained stable for a couple of years. You may or may not like it, but it certainly isn't "mine". - - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing another editor's comments on this talk page

WP:TPO, more formally Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments states: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning.... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."

  • At 21:52, 19 December 2014, SchroCat edited one cell in a table in my comments, inserting offensive inappropriate vulgar anatomical language that I would never use and saying things I would never say. This was a clear violation and at 09:35, 20 December 2014, I reverted it with edit summary "Reverted unexplained and unacceptable heading change, removed stranger's comments from my section," which echoes the WP:TPO guideline.
  • At 21:53, 19 December 2014, SchroCat edited a column heading in the same table, changing its meaning. This was not acceptable.
    • At 09:37, 20 December 2014, I reverted it with edit summary "Edit your paragraphs, not mine," which echoes the WP:TPO guideline.
    • At 09:43, 20 December 2014, SchroCat restored this unacceptable intrusion into my comments.
    • At 09:55, 20 December 2014, I reverted it with edit summary "Edit your own comments. Do not vandalize my comments. If you don't like my chart, make your own," which again echoes the WP:TPO guideline.
    • At 10:02, 20 December 2014, SchroCat restored this unacceptable intrusion into my comments.
    • With this edit, I am restoring my comment. If SchroCat disagrees with it in any way, SchroCat is free to say so in a comment signed by SchroCat, but SchroCat is again reminded not to edit the comments of others.
    • This dispute is over a column heading. I set the column heading as SchroCat because SchroCat is the one who reverted the changes I made on the article page. SchroCat repeatedly changed the heading to Extant version. SchroCat agrees with what appears this column; SchroCat reverted my edits to restore what appears in this column; there is nothing offensive about labeling this column SchroCat. The heading is not intended to be about ownership. The heading is simply the name of a Wikipedian who is actively disputing the punctuation of some content in the associated article. It is my comment and I am entitled to label this column SchroCat. Do not edit my comment again.
Editing headings on this talk page

WP:TPO states: "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial.

  • At 22:16, 19 December 2014, SchroCat edited the section heading of this section, which was created by Anomalocaris. I believe that he knew that this change was likely to be controversial, so he should have discussed it first with the editor who started the thread.
    • At 09:35, 20 December 2014, I reverted it.
    • At 09:45, 20 December 2014, SchroCat restored this change, again without discussing it first.
    • I maintain that this section heading should not have been changed without discussing the change first, but in the interest of civility, I will leave SchroCat's change in place.
Accusation on this talk page of edit warring on the associated article page

SchroCat's position is confusing and contradictory.

  • At 21:54, 16 December 2014, SchroCat said, "If you ... hadn't edit warred ..."
  • At 21:33, 19 December 2014, I said "I do not understand why I am accused of edit warring. I reverted only once, at 20:18, 16 December 2014. If one reversion is edit warring, please show me where it says this."
  • At 21:52, 19 December 2014, SchroCat said,
    • "Edit warring is simple: your edit was."
    • "both your edit and the revert was correct, but anything after that is warring."
  • So which is it, SchroCat? I was edit warring because you say so, or I wasn't edit warring? If I wasn't edit warring, why at 21:54, 16 December 2014, did you accuse me of it? Why did you say "anything after that is edit warring" when you know I haven't edited the article since that one reversion? Will you please acknowledge that have not participated in an edit war in the associated article?
Complaint about deleted comment
  • At 21:52, 19 December 2014, SchroCat edited one cell in a table in my comments, inserting offensive inappropriate vulgar anatomical language that I would never use and saying things I would never say, in a clear violation of WP:TPO.
    • At 09:35, 20 December 2014, I reverted it with edit summary "Reverted unexplained and unacceptable heading change, removed stranger's comments from my section," which echoes the WP:TPO guideline.
    • At 09:44, 20 December 2014, SchroCat said, "Do not delete my comments ever again: you could have moved them, but to delete something that points out when you are making up rules to support your pointless entry here is below the belt."
    • It is strange that SchroCat is putting me in the wrong here when it SchroCat and not I who violated WP:TPO.
    • SchroCat seems to regret the loss of SchroCat's comment, but it is not lost. It is available in the archive for eternity.
    • SchroCat accuses Anomalocasis of "making up rules" and acting "below the belt" when it is SchroCat who made literally below-the-belt anatomical remarks here and elsewhere.
Checking sources
  • At 21:54, 16 December 2014, SchroCat asked, "All I will ask instead, is how many of these sources do you have to hand?"
  • At 21:52, 19 December 2014, SchroCat said, "As to the rest, I will check the sources and reply at some point."
  • At 09:44, 20 December 2014, SchroCat said, "I will still check the sources, and note that you have not bothered to answer my question above."

From these comments it is apparent that SchroCat does not understand this dispute. This is not a dispute about sources. This is a dispute about Wikipedia style. Wikipedia style requires changes from the way things appeared in original texts. MOS:QUOTE details the various changes that we make when quoting sources. MOS:LQ is the subsection of MOS:QUOTE relating to placing punctuation inside or outside quotes. It makes no difference how these quotes may have appeared in other sources. In Wikipedia, we change them to Wikipedia style.

Continuing this discussion

I am happy to continue this discussion. I will continue to be civil and polite. I will continue to assume good faith. I will continue to stick to the facts. I will continue to cite Wikipedia guidelines and relate them to the issues in dispute. I will continue to avoid vulgarity. I will continue to avoid editing others' comments.

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You spout bollocks: and your wall of text is tl;dr. I repeat what I wrote above, which you chose to ignore, either through ignorance of through dishonourable reasons: "To claim it is "my" version is to uncivilly infer ownership. It is not the case. "Extant version" adequately summarises the point of the article that went through PR and FAC and has remained stable for a couple of years. You may or may not like it, but it certainly isn't 'mine'." As to the nub here, if you have not got the sources you do not know how or where the sentence ends. To dick around with the punctuation without having the sources to hand is, bluntly, a fool's errand, and I pity you for not grasping something so obvious.. I've not come across someone prepared to write so much balls on something that doesn't affect our readers enjoyment or understanding of an article, but whatever the reason, the disruption certainly isn't welcome or constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Anomalocaris responds to repeated request for sources

This comment was created at 03:22, 22 December 2014 by Anomalocaris), deleted at 04:29, 22 December 2014‎ by Cassianto, and restored at 08:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC) by Anomalocaris with very slight edits marked at the end. Since this comment was drafted before the comment above (edit 08:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC): now below, as SchroCat moved the comment from just above to just below this one) by SchroCat at 07:52, 22 December 2014, it responds neither to the above (edit 08:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC): now below) comment nor to any changes in Ian Fleming made since it was drafted.

SchroCat: "tl;dr" is short for "to long; didn't read." You didn't read my comment; yet you declare that I spout (anatomical vulgarism). It is regrettable that after I labored extensively to make my comment easy-to-read with bold headings and bullet points, that you would perceive it as a "wall of text". [Period outside quotes per MOS:LQ]

As of the posting creating the table, at 21:29, 16 December 2014, Anomalocaris completely conceded the 6th item in the table, beginning, "Ian's mood of weariness...", and partially conceded the 1st item in the table, beginning, "T-Force = Target Force...." As of this posting, Anomalocaris completely concedes the 1st item in the table. The reason is, the source of the 1st item shows:

... Expeditionary Force a simple instruction was prepared, laying out the brief for these new units: 'T-Force = Target Force, to guard and secure documents, persons, equipment, with combat and Intelligence personnel, after capture of large towns, ports etc. in liberated and enemy territory.'

Anomalocaris accepts the equals sign as the verb in the quoted sentence, so period goes inside by MOS:LQ.

The remaining dispute is over 8 periods that Anomalocaris believes should be inside quotes and SchroCat believes should be outside quotes, plus three periods that Anomalocaris believes should be outside quotes and SchroCat believes should be inside quotes, both parties saying that MOS:LQ supports their position.

The three periods that Anomalocaris believes should be outside quotes are the ones in the table where column Sentence ends concide? is No, quote is fragment. In these three cases, the quote begins in the middle of a sentence. Again, MOS:LQ states, "Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside." These three quotations are fragments, so that should end the matter. One might want to check the source to verify that the quotes are accurate, but for the purpose of deciding whether to place the period inside or outside the quotes, there is no need to check the source. The period goes outside the quotes, per MOS:LQ.

The source of the 3rd item shows:

Fleming: "It struck me that this brief, unromantic, Anglo-Saxon and yet very masculine name was just what I needed, and so a second James Bond was born."

The period goes inside the quotes, not because the period is inside the quotes of the source text, but because of MOS:LQ.

The source of the 4th item shows:

I have just finished what is without a doubt the nastiest book I have ever read.

The period goes inside the quotes per MOS:LQ.

The source of the 5th item shows:

By the time I was a third of the way through, I had to suppress a strong impulse to throw the thing away, and only continued reading because I realised that here was a social phenomenon of some importance.

Our Wikipedia Ian Fleming excerpt ends mid-sentence:

by the time I was a third of the way through, I had to suppress a strong impulse to throw the thing away.

Does the period go inside or outside the quotes? I believe the answer is, it shouldn't be a period at all, it should be a four-dot ellipsis, inside quotes:

Johnson went on to say, "by the time I was a third of the way through, I had to suppress a strong impulse to throw the thing away...."

With the ellipsis, we satisfy the condition "Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark." Without the ellipsis, we do not have an accurate quote of what Johnson actually said, but it is a sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, so again it would end with a period.

The source of the 9th item] shows (ellipses here, not in original)

Fleming did not use class enemies for his villains instead relying on physical distortion or ethnic identity.... Furthermore, in Britain foreign villains used foreign servants and employees.... This racism reflected not only a pronounced theme of interwar adventure writing, such as the novels of Buchan, but also wider literary culture."

Note the error here in the article that SchroCat passionately defends against changes by Anomalocaris: The third word from the end is "wider", not "widespread". In any event, the end of this quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, so terminal punctuation should be placed inside the closing quotation mark.

The source of the 14th and last item shows

Thus, the central paradox of the classic Bond stories is that, although superficially devoted to the Anglo-American war against communism, they are full of contempt and resentment for America and Americans.

The Ian Fleming article says

Author and journalist Christopher Hitchens observed that "the central paradox of the classic Bond stories is that, although superficially devoted to the Anglo-American war against communism, they are full of contempt and resentment for America and Americans".

The quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, so terminal punctuation should be placed inside the closing quotation mark. I believe the omission of the word thus is harmless, but if one wanted to be pedantic, one could insert a three-dot ellipsis at the open quote.

I have not checked every example, but I have checked enough and explained enough. I now propose to revert Ian Fleming to the latest version by Anomalocaris, with the following changes:

  • 1st item, beginning "T-Force = Target Force", shall end with the period inside quotes.
  • 5th item, beginning "By the time I was a third of the way through", shall end with a four-dot ellipsis inside quotes.
  • 6th item, beginning "Ian's mood of weariness", shall have the comma outside quotes.
  • 9th item, beginning "Fleming did not use class enemies", shall replace the 3-dot ellipses with 4 dot ellipses not preceded by space, and have the third word from the end changed from "widespread" to "wider".

I anticipate there will be further discussion here—indeed I encourage it—but if there is none, after a week I will implement my proposal.

I beseech all participants in this discussion to read and think about each others' comments before responding, to be civil and polite, to assume good faith, to stick to the facts, to cite Wikipedia guidelines and relate them to the issues in dispute, to avoid anatomical vulgarisms (added 08:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC): including this one or this one, and most important, to cease violating WP:TPO by editing or deleting other people's comments).

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked in one or two places. There is nothing more to discuss: on the remaining points, you are wrong. You do not need to reply, especially with a further wall of nonsense, and your disruption can now cease. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Sentence construction

The article read:

"According to Fleming's niece, Lucy, an official of the Royal Air Force pointed out that if they were to drop a downed Heinkel bomber in the English Channel, it would probably sink rather quickly."

I changed it to:

"According to Fleming's niece Lucy Fleming, an official of the Royal Air Force had pointed out that if they were to drop a downed Heinkel bomber in the English Channel, it would probably sink rather quickly."

The original is a garden-path sentence. "Lucy" is surrounded by quotes, which therefore appear to be parentheses. Fleming's niece and the RAF official appear to be the same person until you reach "pointed out".

I also changed "Lucy" to "Lucy Fleming", because otherwise you don't know what her surname is until you click on or mouse-over the link.

My change was reverted because of "repetition" -- presumably because of the "Lucy" to "Lucy Fleming" change. I reverted it: "No guarantee that a niece has the same surname. Also change to sentence construction to remove ambiguity." This was reverted: "I think the previous version is clear enough".

It seems odd to revert a change on grounds that the previous one is "clear enough". More clarity is better than less clarity.

I will revert again if no one has any objections. cagliost (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, in both sentences it is possible that Lucy Fleming is an RAF official until you reach the words "pointed out". However, in the second case the reader is aware of the ambiguity. In the first case, there does not appear to be any ambiguity: it seems quite clear that Lucy is an official of the RAF until you reach "pointed out" and realise you have been led down the garden path. cagliost (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There obviously are objections, so please do not revert. Your comment deals with two issues, Lucy's surname, which certainly isn't needed (people can click on the link if they are interested, and the lack of surname suggests it may well be Fleming anyway. The second point, the "garden path", isn't clarified by your edit at all. I'll draft an alternative for consideration shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no point at all in giving Lucy her surname. It is clear she is the niece of Fleming, that is all we need to know as the reader. Using "Fleming" so soon after we use "Fleming's niece" is both repetitive and unnecessary. On the other point, I believe SchroCat is addressing it as we speak. Cassiantotalk 12:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem of Lucy appearing to be an official of the RAF can be solved by removing the "an official of", without any problems to the sense of the rest, thus:
  • According to Fleming's niece, Lucy, the Royal Air Force pointed out that if they were to drop a downed Heinkel bomber in the English Channel, it would probably sink rather quickly.
I think this solves the "garden path" issue. Having mulled over the "Lucy / Lucy Fleming" question, on reflection I'm still happier with the current wording, than the clumsiness of "Fleming...Fleming" in the text. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Another opinion

I've seen the arbcom comments. I've skimmed this page. I've read the relevant MOS section. I looked carefully at the table at the beginning of the discussion above, and I have to say I agree completely, right down the line, with Anomalocaris. SchroCat, your edits all go contrary to the guideline in MOS. I don't know what you're thinking. CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then you labour under the same misconceptions, I suggest you try looking at the article, not the table. (And I suggest you look at the sources too, because you can't tell what is or isn't a fragment or a complete sentence without them in a number of cases). Let's look at your complete down the line agreement shall we? Don't forget the rule: a fragment of a sentence means punctuation is outside:
  1. "so far as I can see the element of suspense is completely absent."
  2. "so far as I can see the element of suspense is completely absent".
Given this is a fragment, talk me through your wholehearted support for having the full stop inside the quote mark. I don't know what you're thinking. The same error is repeated in a number of the changes that were made. If I can be bothered to add to this overlong and overly pointless storm in a teacup, I'll draw up a table to show where the errors were made. - SchroCat (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the problem is the definition of the word "fragment". Perhaps you mean that this group of words is only part of a longer sentence in the original text. I was interpreting "fragment" as not being a complete sentence grammatically, and that is, I believe, what is meant in the WP guideline. The group of words that you gave as an example above is a complete sentence grammatically. Thus, the period goes inside the final quotation marks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Then your misunderstanding is explained: it is down to the poor wording of the MoS (not the first time our guide is unfiton grounds of clarity). The "sentence" isn't the vague grammatical construction (a sentence can be just one word), but the original quoted sentence. The main style guides which favour LQ describe a "complete" sentence or similar, and when quoting a section of an original sentence, it is a fragment.
  • Sir Ernest Gowers, The Complete Plain Words: "If they [the stops] are part of a longer sentence within which the quotation stands, put them outside the inverted commas"
  • The Guardian: "Place full points and commas inside the quotes for a complete quoted sentence; otherwise the point comes outside"
  • BBC: "With complete sentences, the closing quotation marks go after the full stop … When quoting a single word or phrase, the quotation marks go before the full stop"
Many of the examples above are not the original, complete sentences: they have been trimmed, and the punctuation for those therefore goes outside the quotation marks. - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
All right. At least the source of the misunderstanding has been found. But, if you look at the BBC sentence carefully, you'll see that it is different from the other two sentences. The BBC sentence contrasts "complete sentences" with single words and phrases. A phrase is a grammatically incomplete sentence. A complete sentence is a grammatically complete sentence. Also, I believe there may be a British/American English difference. Have you looked at the style guides used in the U.S. -- the University of Chicago Press's Manual of Style http://typedesk.com/2011/02/15/chicago-manual-of-style-16th-edition-2/ and the Modern Language Association MLA Style Manual? CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I haven't looked at the American guides: this is a BrEng article. As to the phrase/sentence, a grammatically correct sentence can consist of one word. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
That's true, but unusual, and how would you explain the contrast set up in the BBC guideline? CorinneSD (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a substantive difference between the BBC and others. All three make the difference between quoting the complete sentence and a fragment of that sentence, and there is a clear difference in the way they are treated. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
CorinneSD is correct. Sir Ernest Gowers and The Guardian call for a form of logical quotation that differs from Wikipedia's logical quotation explicitly (not vaguely) described at MOS:LQ. Gowers and The Guardian both call for the end punctuation outside quotes when the original sentence is longer that the quote. The BBC does not say this. Where the BBC says "complete sentences" this could mean "grammatically complete sentences" and it could mean "complete sentences as given by their speakers or authors". Both interpretations are entirely reasonable; we can't infer that the BBC agrees with The Guardian just because we "know" British English Usage; that would be circular reasoning. There is no need to concern ourselves over how versions of English interact with Wikipedia's MOS:LQ, because that section begins by stating that its rules apply independently of the version of English: "On the English Wikipedia, use logical quotation style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written." So version or variety of English is irrelevant to placement of end punctuation inside or outside quotes in Wikipedia. MOS:LQ is unambiguous and we don't have the right to choose some other style guide just because we like it better, or because it is more consistent with what we believe to be standard in some version of English. What we do have the right to do is go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and propose changes there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no substantive difference between them. Enough disruption. This article, in line with the MoS, uses LQ. The fact you have misinterpreted it is of no concern to me, but it is fucking annoying to try and continue talking to an unyielding brick wall who doesn't see to take any other viewpoint but their own narrow and incorrect interpretation. Time for you to try and be "constructive" elsewhere: your continuance of discussions on this utterly minor, totally pointless topic has ceased to be constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

"Spektor" encoding machine

The main body of this article makes reference, when citing Fleming's inspirations, to a "Spektor" coding machine, in connection wirh the story "From Russia with love". The actual name of this fictional device was a "Lektor". The author has, perhaps become confused with S.P.E.C.T.R.E., The fictional global organisation which James Bond has encountered in many stories. Referenced from a recent re-viewing of the Blu Ray Edition of "From Russia with love". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.92.35 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think you'll find it was indeed a "Spektor" machine in the book, but altered to "Lektor" for the film. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Suffered"

User:SchroCat has asked to discuss using the word in the article.

User:InedibleHulk and I believe that writing "and suffered from heart disease" and "he suffered a heart attack" is improper, preferring "and from heart disease" and "he had a heart attack". Reasons:

  • "suffered" is WP:EUPHEMISM, like "living with cancer" or "passed away".
  • It is colloquial and violates WP:TONE.
  • As InedibleHulk wrote, it violates WP:POV. "Suffered" implies a value judgement that "had" does not.

SchroCat in response states "Absolutey nothing wrong with the use of this word in this context (it's also supported by the reliable sources, whose use of formal English is unimpeachable)". Whether a source meets the requirements for WP:RS has nothing to do with whether its language complies with the Wikipedia MOS.

He also writes "IH has acknowledged elsewhere that this may not always be the case (See the Faure talk pgae". I do not know what "IH" or "the Faure talk page" is. Ylee (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Suffered from" is OK in everyday usage and would not be considered wrong. It could lead to WP:EUPHEMISM objections in the more pedantic world of Wikipedia. I would go with "had heart disease" and "had a heart attack" as they are more in line with Wikipedia writing style.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with using this term in an encyclopaedic manner, as is done here (i.e., it does not fail TONE). It is not a euphemism, and its meaning is actually clearer than the grammatically poor use InedibleHulk applied to the text here. It was, I suspect, the reason Cassianto re-worked some of the clumsy wording left yesterday. as to POV, that's laughable: did Fleming enjoy the heart disease that killed him? No, he suffered - as he mentioned to his friends and family and as is covered by the reliable sources which are used. My phrasing regarding the reliable sources stands true. If the words "In April 1961 he suffered a heart attack" are good enough for inclusion in the Dictionary of National Biography, they are certainly good enough here.
As to your final sentance: IH is, obviously, InedibleHulk. The Faure talk page is, much less obviously, referring to referring to the thread here, where Tim riley's comments—especially the dictionary definitions—are as applicable here as they are there. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any reason to eradicate "suffered" on sight for the alleged reasons suggested at the top of this thread (one of the first points in WP:Tone, for instance, is "follow the style used by reliable sources"). The term can certainly be overused but that doesn't appear to be the case in this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
IH has very graciously conceded that a blanket ban on "suffered" is inappropriate, where suffering is actually involved. In return I concede that there are cases where "suffered" is not suitable. Each case should be looked at on its merits. The Fleming article is plainly in the former category, as are the two I was getting aerated about. Tim riley talk 17:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There's always a better word for it, but if people feel strongly enough in certain cases for the rhetoric, that outweighs my mild objection. I'm not trying to come down with an iron fist, just a regular fist, like we all use here. No blanket ban, no blanket permission. As a rule of thumb, it makes things sound weak, pathetic and victimized. It's not a softer word type of euphemism, but it softens the subject, so it's a word to watch. Makes fate seem cruel, when shit simply happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"makes things sound weak, pathetic and victimized": then that is your own incorrect definition or POV on the term. I'll remind you of the OED definition that's been given to you previously: "To go or pass through, be subjected to, undergo, experience (now usually something evil or painful)". I do not see anything in that definition that supports your inaccurate "weak, pathetic and victimized" description. – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's the evil part. When someone is subjected to evil with adverse affects, it implies bad things happen to good people. Maybe Fleming was a good person, but that's not an encyclopedia's call to make. Replace it with something like "experience", we lose the moral connotation. Readers can then draw their own conclusions about whether a condition is a blessing or a curse. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
You are taking the smallest part of a definition and expanding it to your own incorrect definition of "weak, pathetic and victimized": that is not the fault of the article, the word or the encyclopaedia, but your own opinion. "Suffered" is not defined as "weak, pathetic and victimized", but is, instead a term used here in an encyclopaedic and acceptable manner. As several others have observed, the term is appropriate here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That's probably why I haven't reverted the reversion. As long as you've at least considered how wrong it is, that's good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Knighthoods

Was Ian Fleming ever offered a knighthood, or other British honours? Did he turn them down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.63.27 (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, he wasn't offered any. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_4&oldid=1136811466"