Talk:Casino Royale (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sir?

Was James Bond a Sir James Bond in this film? He was Commander James Bond in the books...

He's not retired in the books, either.   :)
—Paul A 06:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have recently seen this film. "Sir James Bond" seems to way I understand it. They had the rights to the whole book, but they decided that spoofing the Bond series rather than making a serious film was the way to go. 23skidoo 02:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not true. He had the rights to the entire book. The producer of the film actually went to Broccoli and Saltzman in an attempt to make it an official James Bond film starring Connery, but he was denied so instead of trying to compete with (even at the time) a pretty big franchise, he decided the only way to profit from the rights was to spoof it. The history of Casino Royale on the page, is correct - it goes a little more into detail for why he chose to spoof it (coming off the success of another big name Comedy etc) K1Bond007 03:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

IIRC Producer Feldman actually tried to get Sean Connery to do the movie anyway, but Connery's contract with EON forbade it. 23skidoo 05:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Bulgarian assassination scene

There is one scene in Fleming's Casino Royale that I find simply brilliant.

SMERSH almost got Bond killed with its two Bulgarian assassins. The only reason Bond escaped with his life is that both SMERSH and the assassins were trying to cheat.

SMERSH had supplied the assassins with two camera cases, a red and a blue one. The red was said to contain a high explosive, and the blue to contain a smoke bomb. The assassins were to throw the red case at Bond's feet and then use the blue one to get away without being noticed.

In reality, both cases contained high explosive. SMERSH was trying to cheat by killing the assassins, not leaving any witnesses.

The assassins were trying to cheat by making the job easier for them. They used the blue case first, blowing themselves to smithereens, while Bond was at a safe distance.

If SMERSH hadn't cheated, the assassins would have had the chance to throw the red case at Bond's feet, killing him. If the assassins hadn't cheated, they would have killed Bond first, then themselves.

And this in the very first Bond novel! 85.76.152.179 19:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite impressive. But the scene that remains indelible in my mind is the torture sequence with the rug beater. I flinched when I read that. Fleming never approached that level of brutality again, and the only Bond book by others that I've read that comes close is John Gardner's Brokenclaw. 23skidoo 05:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found this part of the book very good, and the torture scene was very creepy, but I particularly liked the latter part of the book. Bond fell hard for Vesper, even wanting to marry her (something very uncharacteristic of a womanizer) and then she betrayed him and turned up dead and it barely affected him. This was one of the best novels, and the movie (with Daniel Craig) is even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of plot review edit

I made the reluctant decision to revert the lengthy (very lengthy) addition by 68.82.140.174 to the plot summary on the following grounds. 1. It was written as a first-person critique. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain NPOV, and to have a first-person book review just doesn't work. In addition the review was rife with POV speculation on the part of the writer. It was also clearly cut-and-pasted from another source (it had a title line), opening the possibility of a copyvio procedure being undertaken by the admins and those things are a pain to resolve. 68.82.140.174 is more than welcome to expand upon the plot summary in this article, but it should be written as NPOV as possible (no first person references) and not just cut-and-pasted here. 23skidoo 22:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't I would have for most of the same reasons you listed. FYI K1Bond007 22:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. This is 68.82.140.174. Just for the record, that plot review was cut and pasted, but it was written by me (I submitted this plot review to Casino Royale a couple of months ago, and I resubmitted it just to see if this time it wouldn't be deleted. The reason there was a title was because at that time the Casino Royale page was very short. I'm quite impressed with the progress). If you want proff that I wrote the story, go to recent changes and click on my name. I'll be there somewhere. You'll see that I submitted that plot review a couple of months ago.

Yeah we know Patrick. Still it got deleted for being "point of view" (POV) and written in the first person. K1Bond007 20:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ah well. I'll just submit it to a different site. I'm not good at writing encyclopedic articles.-68.82.140.174

Perhaps commanderbond.net or some similar site? There are quite a few out there who accept articles like this. 23skidoo 17:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I liked your article, 68.82.140.174. I will save it by re-posting it!-Jamesbondvandal07

Well unfortunately it's content not suitable for Wikipedia. I reverted. Please dont do that again. Since you were aware of the discussion and the reasons why it was removed you should know that this is bordering on vandalism. K1Bond007 02:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

It is 68.82.140.174. I was doing some late-night browsing on Wikipedia, and I went to the Casino Royale page to see if anything new was posted (I'm a Bond fan) and I saw my article had been put back up! Unfortunately, it was posted by a vandal. Sorry. I do not know who Jamesbondvandal107 is (I think he meant to put 007) and I am not him. I guess he just liked my article.

...Right. Know that sock puppets, especially in this sort of case, can get you banned from Wikipedia. Just FYI for future reference incase something else coincidentally happens like this. Not to be rude, but it's convienant how you checked up on this article 10 minutes after it was vandalised. K1Bond007 02:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I understand. It is pretty convenient that happened, but it wasn't me. I was up doing an art report (though not really doing it) and decided to check in. I probably should have waited a while to reply. Who knows? It could be you...

Other versions

Some of these aren't "other versions of Casino Royale" they're just spoofs or parodies. The latest one from the description doesn't have anything to do with Casino Royale specifically, more like Dr. No. Should these be removed? Moved to James Bond parodies perhaps? I've never heard of the fan film and so far really see no notability about listing it here. There are thousands of these made for Star Wars, Trek and even some for Bond, what makes this one notable? K1Bond007 19:55, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going one step further. I'm removing the Star Trek episode reference altogether because I have never seen any reference anywhere to this being a parody, and homage, or anything else to Bond. I think it's fair to keep the fan film listed here, although I have been unable to confirm the existence of this production, myself. 23skidoo 17:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's an argument to keep it in there. Before I fixed the text, it explicitly stated the opposite. By making it clear that it isn't connected except in a general way, it forestalls someone re-adding the incorrect informatino in the future. It could be shortened. Note that many other Wikipedia articles list cultural references, even when vague. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have with this particular one is that it goes beyond vague; there really seems to be nothing to support any direct relationship to Fleming's novel. The episode uses the name The Royale (a pretty common name for a casino), and the fact the alien simulation was based upon a murder mystery of some sort, if I remember correct (I don't care for the episode so I haven't seen it in a while). As such, it could almost be just as viable to list it under Simon Templar or Ellery Queen. What's needed is some sort of link to a webpage or reference to a source that states that the episode was indeed an homage to Bond. Compare to the obvious references to Bond in the Bashir 007 episodes of DS9. No one can doubt that they reference Bond and, in fact, I personally think "Our Man Bashir" owes more to the Casino Royale movie than to Dr. No, right down to using the same name for the villain as the 1967 movie (I noticed that one got moved to the Dr. No article). Maybe the way to go about it is to post the deleted TNG trivia item here or at the main Bond article and invite comment and see what turns up? 23skidoo 00:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're essentially right. Writer Tracy Tormé says that his original drafts were based on The Prisoner. [1] My point is more about the legitimacy of using the Wikipedia to eliminate confusion when it exists, as in disambiguation pages. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moves

I'd rather move this back to Casino Royale and have a {{otheruses}} link to a disambiguation page. Reasoning being that every adaptation is based on the novel in some form. All of these adaptations would be and are explained in the intro anyway.

• Casino Royale (novel, TV, adaptation history)
  • 1967
  • 2006

Or something to this effect. I don't like how Casino Royale is a disambiguation page now, when it truly doesn't need to be. K1Bond007 22:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Another film version?

A friend of mine insists, along with the rest of his family, that he saw a version of Casino Royale which featured Sean Connery as James Bond (Not Jimmy Bond), and in which he played a 'lethal computer game' ie. who ever loses, dies, as well as a second, training game. Since 3D computer games weren't around during 1954 or '67, is there any possiblity of what it is, or is he mistaken? (He is also certain it is not a spoof)Smurrayinchester 15:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your friend saw Never Say Never Again which was a remake of Thunderball. It was made in 1983. 23skidoo 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the article Never Say Never Again, I can see how he got confused. Smurrayinchester 16:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The computer game is a major sequence in Never Say Never. I'm not sure what he's referring to in regards to a second game ... probably the realistic-looking training exercise that opens the film. Opinions on Never Say Never are decidedly mixed ... there are some folks who do consider it a spoof! 23skidoo 17:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Sean Connery playing a guy named James Bond in a spy movie directed by the guy who made Empire Strikes Back and previously directed Connery in the 1966 film A Fine Madness specializing in character driven films, sounds like a pretty damn good 007 flick to me! The only other Bond movie made by EON that compares with NSNA is From Russia with Love. Both garner ****½ out of 5 stars.--Mole Man 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"currently Thunderball and Moonraker have all been adapted twice"

Besides the obvious film, what is the other adaptation of Moonraker? Is this referring to Die Another Day, which has been compared to Moonraker? Perhaps the article could be a bit more clear - Both the Moonraker and DAD articles only make passing references to what are mostly similarities. --Maxamegalon2000 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a radio play in 1956 with Bob Holness providing the voice for Bond. It states this at Moonraker. To my knowledge the statement in question here is correct, unless there were other adaptations of other novels that I'm not aware of. Perhaps, the line should be removed or modified since it's kind of confusing. I mean, for instance, all of the novels have been adapted as a comic strip and some of them as a comic book - yet somehow this doesn't count, but Moonraker's play does. K1Bond007 05:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an optional bit of detail that can be removed without harming the article. 23skidoo 15:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Super. Thank you for doing that. --Maxamegalon2000 05:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Felix Leiter plot edit

Felix Leiter didn't win the 32 million francs he gives Bond on the 'roulette wheel' as it currently says in the article.

From the text:

Unbelieving and yet knowing it was true, he felt the broad wads of notes. He slipped them into his pockets, retaining the half-sheet of note-paper which was pinned to the topmost of them. He glanced at it in the shadow below the table. There was one line of writing in ink: 'Marshall Aid. Thirty-two million francs. With the compliments of the USA.'

It was merely the CIA's contribution to MI6's plan to bankrupt le Chiffre, hence the "Marshall Aid" crack (see Marshall Plan).

Leiter says

'He's a very serious gambler, Miss Lynd,' he said. 'And I guess he has to be. Now come with me and watch Number 17 obey my extra-sensory perceptions. You'll find it quite a painless sensation being given plenty of money for nothing.'

I think what happens is clear...ka1iban 04:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is actually what I recall, but it's been about a year or more since I read it so I wasn't going to get involved. K1Bond007 06:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I also stand corrected. 23skidoo 06:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casino_Royale&oldid=14903432 was the source of the change. I've seen other Wikipedia mirrors that didn't have it though. It's not a big deal, but it's not explicity stated that Bond gave Leiter ANY money at all, and it's fairly heavily implied that Leiter was there with American funds in case Bond had to be bailed out at the table.

This article (and all the Bond articles, on the whole) is looking great. Kudos. ka1iban 14:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

This should me merged with the article for the movie, just like the other novels which inspired James Bond films. It could look like this:

The references would have to be fixed, of course. What do you think?

Esaborio 06:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No merge

No - the articles should be separate, otherwise it becomes too damn long and complicated. Plus if we combine these two then we'll have to also merge Casino Royale (1967 film) as well. Forget it. Yes I am aware that other Bond books/films are single articles, but Casino Royale is a special case. 23skidoo 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It would end up fairly over-layered and confusing if they were all merged. Considering CR has been incarnated in so many different forms (unlike, say, Goldfinger), I think a regular disambiguation page to separate articles should do the trick. ka1iban 15:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• No merge - too much information. The CR2006 article is big enough as it is and it leaves out the CR67 version. What we're doing here now, the book, the 1954 TV episode, and an overview of the rest is good enough. K1Bond007 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

bad sentence in intro paragraph?

End of intro paragraph reads:

"Once the new film is completed, Casino Royale will become the only Ian Fleming work to be adapted for screen on more than two occasions"

What about Thunderball (film) - Never Say Never Again? Both are based on work first published on Thunderball (book)... Notwithstanding the Thunderball lawsuit controversy, said intro paragraph seems still to be wrong imho. Comments? Peter S. 08:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's correct. Casino Royale is the only Fleming work that has been adapted for screen on more than two occasions. The 1954 TV episode, the 1967 film, the 2006 film. Thunderball only had 2 screen adaptations: Thunderball and NSNA. K1Bond007 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence is correct, or was correct before the movie was completed. It was a great movie, but I don't understand why it couldn't be set in 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted sentence needs clarification

I have deleted the following from the section on the 1967 spoof: The 'serious version' of Casino Royale as it has come to be called went missing for years upon its showing. It was not until 1981 when film collector Jim Shoenberger discovered prints within an old film can labeled Casino Royale. They were almost disposed of when it was thought it was a copy of the more widely known Casino Royale parody until he realized it contained a black & white piece.

There is no reference in this section to there ever being a "serious version" of the 1967 film made. And such a statement needs a citation. Could this be a reference to the 1954 version that has accidentally ended up in the wrong section? The 1954 Casino Royale was believed lost until the 1980s. If so, most of this sentence can be trimmed as the 1954 section already mentions most of this information. 23skidoo 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The short plot summary

"Bond spends the first half of the book getting his balls flayed, and the second wondering whether he still can screw. And it turns out that he can."

A friend of mine summarized it that way some decades ago. I just reread the book and I must say it pretty well captures the gist. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And this relates to improving this article how? 23skidoo 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Yes, it is true, but it's offensive, and there's no reference to his romance with Vesper of Le Chiffre's death, just his testicle mutilation. Seriously, put that in the plot summary section, and see how quickly it get's deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Le Chiffre and SMERSH

Multiple entries on Wikipedia currently describe Le Chiffre as having been an agent of SMERSH. I'm not sure where this misconception started, or whether it has something to do with the recent movie, but there is nothing in the original novel to suggest this. SMERSH is described as a select group within Soviet intelligence itself, acting as a secret police. Le Chiffre simply worked as a general Soviet agent, until eventually stealing funds entrusted to him and becoming a target FOR assassination by SMERSH. This can easily be realized upon reading the dossier given to M in the beginning of the book. Renfield 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Status in U.S.

My Penguin Books (United States) copy does not seem to have a copyright notice. Perhaps the novel's copyright was never renewed. Has anyone looked into this? Davros666 04:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I double checked. It says the copyright date is 1953.

Mine too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CR Film novel.jpg

Image:CR Film novel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Numerous small edits

An anonymous editor made a whole pile of small edits at once in this edit. Most of it looks fine, but some of the changes seem odd. Original title was "computer"? Cheyney/Cheney? If you're familiar with the book you may want to comb through those changes and see what really belongs and what doesn't. Matt Deres (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I have always read that Eon couldn't make Casino Royale into a film because Fleming already sold the rights. How is that so? If Fleming was the author, couldn't he give anyone permission to turn the book into a film? Emperor001 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If he'd sold the rights, he couldn't then give them (or sell them) to someone else - that would be fraud ! -- Beardo (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Casino Royale (1954) is a television episode, and really isn't a film, and rather than have a fully blown article and on a films template that implies it is a film, I'd like to merge what is on Casino Royale (Climax!) currently into the apprpriate section in the Adaptions section of this article. I have notified WikiProject James Bond on this, and if there are no responses within a month, I'd presume no-body really minds.  The Windler talk  01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the TV episode's article provides enough info to have an article on it's own. Merging it with the novel's article it's no good, otherwise it would say like 40% about the novel, 40% about the 1954 episode and 20% about the other adaptations. Besides, a novel article should mainly deal with the novel, not with the various adaptations. Those few paragraphs about the latters are already enough. --Alex:D (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alex :D. A merging of the climax episode would make the article too long, and I think the first adaption of a James Bond book is notable enough to warrent its own article. The Casino Royale article is only to briefly outline the various adaptions, not provide a full-blown mini-article thing.

P.S. Am I too late for this discussion. Is it already over? Spongefrog (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't merged it, and now will not as there are two conflicting ideas. I put my idea out there but others refuted that, so. Thanks,  The Windler talk  21:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, sure. Wow I wasnt even expacting a reply. Anyway I have to SLEEP so I'll re. later. Wait, I can't say anything else so I won't. Spongefrog (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tags, since it doesn't look like its going to be merged for now. Sorry about your idea being refuted. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I've relocated all the trivia to other sections of the article. Most went to a cultural references section. There was something about a Howard Hawks adaption so I gave that its own sub-sub-section in the adaptions bit. If you think it's not long or notable enough to be there, move it somewhere else, I would have if I could think of a place. Some more of it went to publication history, but it appeared to contradict itself so I had to alter it slightly, any referencing here would help. This post is just so no-one disagrees with where I put the stuff, and they can say if they do. Its not that drastic a change, I know, but I felt some of it was slightly out-of-place. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I made a big long list of all the editions, don't know if its too long. I'm not being bold enough in my editing, its just I don't want anyone to be angry with me. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict in text

This line removed: "Some sources have suggested that this was intended as a pilot for a potential Bond TV series starring Nelson." because in the opening lines of this same section it states that a TV series was the reason for the pilot in which Barry Nelson was the star! I guess the conflict came in due to constant editing by different people adding different bits, which means that the entire article should be read again to see if more of this confusion appears in the body.

MI6 or British Secret Service?

In my readings of the novels over many years, Bond always works for the British Secret Service. This seems to have morphed into MI6 in the more recent movies. Surely when discussing the original novels we should stick with the Secret Service?

Same difference. The British Secret Intelligence Service is MI6. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed section

I've removed the following, which seems to me be be a bit of overkill really...

The following is a list of English language editions of Casino Royale;

• Casino Royale (1953 first edition)

• Publisher: Jonathan Cape
• Hardcover
• United Kingdom

• Casino Royale (1954)

• Publisher: Macmillan
• Hardcover
• United States

• You Asked For It (1955)

• Publisher: Popular Library
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (1955)

• Pan Books
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (1960)

• Publisher: Signet Books
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (1964)

• Publisher: Pan Books
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (1971)

• Publisher: Bantam Books
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (1978)

• Publisher: Granada
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (1979)

• Publisher: Chivers Press
• Hardcover
• UK
• Large print edition

• Casino Royale (1980)

• Publisher: Jove Books
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (1982)

• Publisher: Berkeley Books
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (1987)

• Publisher: Charter Books
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (1987)

• Publisher: Berkeley Books
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (1988)

• Publisher: Coronet
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (2002)

• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Paperback
• US

• Casino Royale (2002)

• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker (2003) [Omnibus volume]

• Publisher: Penguin Modern Classics
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (2004)

• Publisher: Penguin Modern Classics
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (2006)

• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (2006)

• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Paperback
• UK

• Casino Royale (2008)

• Publisher: Penguin 007
• Hardcover
• UK

After 2002, all English language editions of Casino Royale have been published by Penguin Books, or an imprint of Penguin.

If anyone really wants it back in, then please let me know, but this does seem to be unsourced and a little excessive, as well as only being a record of the UK publications and not global ones... - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Casino Royale (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk • contribs • count) 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Still one of my fave Bond novels, but I'll try not to let that influence me to be either too hard or too easy in this review... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great, cheers Ian! Annoyingly I'm away from Sat 17 until Tuesday 20 and then from 26th to Oct 1, but I'll update in between and when I return - I hope this is OK! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Technical review

• Dab links: None (no action required)
• External links: Some warnings only (no action required)
• Alt text: Not present (not strictly required however)

Prose/content

• Performed a copyedit for grammar and to cut some repeated words, however still some things I'd like you to look at:
  • Style point first off: unless you something I don't about MOS (entirely possible, BTW!), why have the quotes from Fleming and Benson in italics? Suggest using the same formatting as the passage from the book re. the vodka martini.
  • I think you're quoting excessively (except in the Reception section, where quoting directly from reviewers is appropriate). While I understand the temptation to quote because the source expresses things in a neat way and/or you don't want to just change a word or two and risk being accused of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, too much can look a bit lazy. I'd suggest you go over everything before the Reception section and see if you can't put into your own words more of the things you're quoting. No need to eliminate all of them, particularly if the source is a notable person or the quote is really apt, but try to achieve a better balance between your words and your sources'.
  • In the Reception section there are too many instaces of "so-and-so thought..." There are variations you can use for "thought", such as "considered", "felt", "believed", or "opined". You could also say "according to so-and-so..." or "in so-and-so's opinion..." Of course that doesn't mean you can only use "thought" once, but try to sprinkle some of these other terms in there between them...
• I notice you have other Bond novels up for GAN, so suggest you consider reviewing them and perhaps rejigging based on the above points, when this nom is complete.

All  Done - I'll follow up with the subsequent novels over the weekend and then when I'm back online as I'm out of internet range for the week - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks mate. Made a few more changes myself but happy with your additions and with changes to wording in the review section. Re. the quotes, I think the balance is much better now, and you've still managed to keep most of the best ones intact. However I believe you should attibute those you have left -- not necessarily the ones of only a couple of words, but the more extended ones. You've done this with the quote by Lycett at the beginning of Characters and themes; suggest you do it for all the authors of your longer quotes as well.  Done I think I should have covered them all now, but please let me know if I've missed one (or doubled up on one!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, tks mate. Heh, I realise now that where you attribute a quote to notable person (i.e. one with a linked WP article), and especially to a very well known one (e.g. Hitchins or Amis), you may not need to identify them with a profession. Sorry I didn't clarify that before -- I'd say leave the ones you've done except for Amis -- he's famous enough...!

I'll leave them in - including Amis - as with the standards of modern education I'm sure he's not mentioned outside university courses nowadays! ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Another thing I noticed first time round but forgot to highlight here was Childhood friend Brett Hart was the basis for the novel, including a trip to Lisbon that Fleming and the Director of Naval Intelligence, Admiral Godfrey, took during World War II en route to the United States. -- This is phrased awkwardly; how is Hart the basis for the novel? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)  Done Thought I'd cleared that one before as it is a legacy from before my edits: now re-written and (hopefully) clearer. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• That helped, though it still needed a bit of finetuning...! Also there seems to be a contradiction. If Fleming claimed that he was cleaned out, and Admiral Godfrey said this was fantasy, shouldn't the last bit be "...Fleming only played Portuguese businessmen and that afterwards he fantasised about German agents and the excitement of being cleaned out by them", rather than "cleaning them out"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sort of, but I may have convoluted the telling of it: Fleming claimed to have played Nazi spies and lost. Godfrey said F played Portuguese businessmen and lost, but that subsequently F had fantasised about beating Nazi spies. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. I think then better just say "...Fleming only played Portuguese businessmen and that afterwards he fantasised about German agents" and stop there -- I'm just concerned that others will see this as an error in the article if you leave in the contradictory "cleaning them out", even it it's in the source... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure

• Seems to follow the broad requirements of the MOS for novel articles.

Referencing

• You seem to have used a broad range of sources and cited them meticulously, which is great.
• I'm a little dubious about commanderbond.net as sole reference for the unproduced stage play. While it's not a huge deal at GA level, it would come under deeper scrutiny at FAC -- couldn't a more obviously reliable source be found?

 Done (sort of!) I've left it in there for the quote, but added a cite from Benson's own site as well as back-up

• That's fine by me for the purposes of this review, at least, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Supporting materials

• Fair use seems applicable for the sole image used, i.e. first edition cover.

Summary

• This is a nice effort with good depth of research. If you can look to the comments above, particularly the over-quoting and the wording re. what reviewers "thought", I'm sure I'll have no problem passing for GA in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• The use of Template:Rquote does not conform to the 'Template documentation' which says "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text." and goes on to recommend more appropriate templates to use. maclean (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)  Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, happy to pass this now, tks for all your hard work, Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks Ian for your help - nice review process to! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

bond's original name

The protagonist was originally supposed to be named James Secretan. Pls add that info from here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309144/The-names-Secretan--James-Secretan-Early-Ian-Fleming-draft-reveals-nearly-chose-different-007.html?ito=feeds-newsxml ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article, his first cover name was supposed to be Secretan. His name was still Bond to friends and coworkers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

John Dee and 007

I've just seen that this is in here, having removed it from the Dee page (where it had previously been removed) - please see my comments there. But the problem is this: it's clearly a hoax. There are no credible sources for it. They all lead back, eventually, to a writer called Richard Deacon, aka Donald McCormick. There's no evidence for it anywhere else. It has been comprehensively debunked in this article: http://www.jwmt.org/v2n19/golden.html McCormick was also a proven hoaxer on Jack The Ripper. I've also shown, in some depth, how he was responsible for several other hoaxes about James Bond in this article on my blog: http://jeremyduns.blogspot.se/2011/02/licence-to-hoax.html This idea, like his ones about Ian Fleming having an affair with Christine Granville and luring Hess to Scotland, is so persistent because it's so wonderfully attractive. Here's just one recent internet discussion showing how drawn people can be to the idea: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/6769/john-dee-the-original-007 Unless someone can provide a credible source that doesn't lead back to McCormick that shows a letter or document written by Dee using the symbol I suggest as an encyclopedia we leave it out for good, and don't continue to perpetuate this myth just because it sounds cool. Can I get a consensus on this? Jeremy Duns (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll edit out the stuff on Dee shortly, as per my explanation in the above paragraph. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Three dubiously reliable sources against the University of Cambridge? - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... Hello, SchroCat. What are the 'three dubiously reliable sources'? Did you really read what I wrote above carefully before chiming in? Did you read the links I gave? Please also read my comments at the John Dee Talk page, where I deal with that UoC online news article. And take a closer look at the UoC article - the source is given as Deacon, aka McCormick. Plenty of reputable media and institutions have been fooled by him on this (and several other matters). But there's no credible evidence for it.

Would you also mind signing your name next time, and perhaps being a little more civil and constructive when you do? Thanks. Jeremy Duns (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh? Are you 12? If not, then cut the uncivil nonsense and try and be a lot less condescending when you deal with others please. A fansite and a blog are not classed as reliable sources. The University of Cambridge is. I will admit that I have not looked into the background of whether the Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition should be considered a reliable source or not. I will look more closely at the UoC posting and the JWMT later. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A sigh is not uncivil. Not bothering to check anything before dismissing it really is! I was being very restrained, considering the pattern of your comments. I haven't cited a fansite to refute McCormick's claim. If you had read what I actually wrote, rather than just jumping to contradict me at every turn, you'll discover that rather than suggesting the fansite discussion disproved this idea that John Dee used '007', I actually linked to it to show how attractive people find this fabricated idea. You just saw that I had made a comment and wanted to catch me out. You didn't even *read* the comment, let alone the links. You just spotted I'd used three urls and that one of them was for a fansite. You didn't read what I had written about it, which was not in evidence against this claim but to show how often it's taken as true by fans, and so easily spreads, but thought 'Oooh, he's cited MI6! Got him!' and so immediately objected that I was using an unreliable source. Both your comments above prove you didn't even read mine. That's both astonishingly bad faith and sloppy. Please actually *read comments before criticizing them*.

The Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition is not something I'd ever heard of before I looked at McCormick, but it is cited on various Wikipedia entries. It's also just clear from reading the article - an extraordinary idea! But try it - that it's authoritative and right on this. The alternative would be that someone has falsely debunked it, which is possible, but common sense suggests infinitessimally unlikely, especially as McCormick is known to have been a hoaxer on other topics.

UoC is generally a reliable source, yes, but that is a news item on their webpage, not an academic article, and respected sources can get things wrong, and be fooled by clever hoaxers. There is the Journal debunking this and my own debunking of other aspects of his journalism suggesting a pattern of deception (yes, it is on my blog, but I'm a published author and have some expertise in this area - incidentally, Andrew Lycett has been very kind about that article and said it was about time someone pulled McCormick up on his fabrications).

But even if you ignore both of those, this is a very odd thing to have in an article about the novel Casino Royale anyway! If it were true, I'd suggest moving it to the James Bond character page, where there's already a redirect for people searching for '007'. But to do that, and to keep it here, someone needs to provide a credible source that doesn't lead back to McCormick that shows a letter or document written by Dee using the symbol. But, please trust me, nobody is going to be able to do that, because if you put down your knife for a moment and realize I know my onions, and read my article on my blog, you'll see that, yes, McCormick has fabricated several very plausible-seeming and attractive ideas about Fleming and James Bond, and that they have been perpetuated unthinkingly by a lot of otherwise reliable sources, and by Wikipedia. And if you put your pride down about the fact you have had to restore all the edits of mine you've objected to so far, and we have not got on at all, and instead we work together, like Crowe and Pearce in that great scene in LA Confidential, we could actually take a wrecking ball to a lot of nonsense, and stop just retaining things because they sound cool and a few otherwise reliable sources have fallen for them, but look deeper, look to see if primary sources even exist, use common sense, be bold, and improve the information here. Or you can continue to try to catch me out. But I haven't been wrong yet, and it's really a sunny day. It would be great to spend some of it outdoors rather than having to argue with you about things you haven't checked yet! Jeremy Duns (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Logical quotation

There is a disagreement over the placement of end punctuation of several sentences.

Kingsley Amis

Academic and writer Kingsley Amis, in his exploration of Bond in The James Bond Dossier, pointed out that "Leiter, such a nonentity as a piece of characterization ... he, the American, takes orders from Bond, the Britisher, and that Bond is constantly doing better than he...."

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."

I checked the source and verified that in the original, the sentence continues after "better than he". That is why I edited this sentence to place a four-dot ellipsis at the end. But without the ellipsis, it is still a valid English sentence ending at "better than he". The four-dot ellipsis inside quotes can be used to show that in the original, the sentence continued. If the ellipsis is omitted, it is still a sentence, even if not the exact sentence from the source, and the two conditions of MOS:LQ are satisfied. The quotation is a sentence. It coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. So the terminal punctuation should be placed inside the closing quotation mark, if the ellipsis is omitted.

Alan Ross

Alan Ross, writing in The Times Literary Supplement wrote that Casino Royale was "an extremely engaging affair", and that "the especial charm ... is the high poetry with which he invests the green baize lagoons of the casino tables."

I did not look for the source. However, there are only two possibilities. Either Ross's sentence began with "the especial charm" and ended with "tables" or it didn't. If the quote does match Ross's sentence, by MOS:LQ the full stop goes inside the close quote.

Suppose Ross's original sentence were something like, "Furthermore, the especial charm ... is the high poetry with which he invests the green baize lagoons of the casino tables and chairs." In that case, the quotation would still be a sentence, but not Ross's sentence. I would recommend placing a three-dot ellipsis inside the open quote if Ross's sentence started before "the essential charm", and a four-dot ellipsis if Ross's sentence ended after "tables". Until someone checks the source to see if an ending ellipsis is warranted, it is still a valid English sentence ending at "tables", even if it is uncertain if it is the exact sentence from the source. Without the ellipsis, the two conditions of MOS:LQ are satisfied. The quotation is a sentence. It coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. So the terminal punctuation should be placed inside the closing quotation mark.

John Betjeman

John Betjeman, writing in The Daily Telegraph, considered that "Ian Fleming has discovered the secret of the narrative art ... which is to work up to a climax unrevealed at the end of each chapter. Thus the reader has to go on reading."

Whether or not Betjeman's original sentence ended with "reading", "Thus the reader has to go on reading," is a sentence. The two conditions of MOS:LQ are satisfied. The quotation is a sentence. It coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. So the terminal punctuation should be placed inside the closing quotation mark.

Jonathan Cape

Publishers Jonathan Cape included many of the reviews on their advertisements for the book, which appeared in a number of national newspapers; the reviews included those from The Sunday Times, which concluded that Fleming was "the best new English thriller-writer since Ambler" and The Observer, which advised their readers: "don't miss this."

"Don't miss this," is a sentence. Whether it matches exactly with The Observer's sentence, it's a sentence, so the period goes inside the quotes.

— Anomalocaris (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Deep joy: another tedious wall of rubbish. You need to learn what LQ is. DO NOT EDIT ANY MORE ARTICLES FOR LQ UNTIL YOU LEARN WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Most of the above are NOT complete sentences: they are fragments, and are punctuctated accordingly. - SchroCat (talk),

Hi SchroCat, thank you for your suggestion, but I have plenty of experience on this. Here is my analysis:

• He, the American, takes orders from Bond, the Britisher, and that Bond is constantly doing better than he....
  • The original sentence doesn't end at "than he", so an ellipsis is the best approach.
• The especial charm ... is the high poetry with which he invests the green baize lagoons of the casino tables.
  • Sentence: subject — linking verb — predicate noun phrase.
• Thus the reader has to go on reading.
  • Sentence.
• Don't miss this.
  • Sentence.

Kindly explain where this is wrong. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

These are not the complete sentences of the original text (afaik), which is the basis of the rule. If you have not seen the original text you should not be making flawed judgements on where to place punctuation.

• He, the American, takes orders from Bond, the Britisher, and that Bond is constantly doing better than he....

• The original sentence doesn't end at "than he", so the punctuation goes after the quote: an ellipses is incorrect.

• The especial charm ... is the high poetry with which he invests the green baize lagoons of the casino tables.

• not the complete original: extant version remains

• Thus the reader has to go on reading.

• not the complete original: extant version remains

• Don't miss this.

• not the complete original: extant version remains

As before, you need the source to determine the original before you dick around with the extant version. - SchroCat (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

In the first sentence

• He, the American, takes orders from Bond, the Britisher, and that Bond is constantly doing better than he....
  • We agree that the original sentence doesn't end at "than he". This is exactly what an ellipsis is for.

I have not viewed the source of the other three, but MOS:LQ says nothing about the terminal punctuation of the original. It says, "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." "Don't miss this," is a sentence. It coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. Therefore, per MOS:LQ, the terminal punctuation should be placed inside. Kindly explain what is wrong with this analysis. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That's because the MoS,is poorly worded. 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 it as 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"

Ellipses show where words are missing the middle and ocassionally the start of sentences, not the end: the inverted commas and placement of the punctuation show that. - SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(Revised 07:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC); I was careless and didn't realize SchroCat's previous posting was more than its final paragraph)

We should ordinarily abide by what WP:MOS says, not by what we wish it says. When WP:MOS disagrees with another style guide, we should follow WP:MOS, not the other style guide, just as at The Guardian, they follow their own style guide when it disagrees with BBC's.

MOS:ELLIPSIS begins thus (boldface mine):

An ellipsis (plural ellipses) is used to indicate an omission of material from quoted text or some other omission, perhaps of the end of a sentence, often in a printed record of conversation.

— Anomalocaris (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

When the MoS is flawed, you want to ensure our articles are also flawed? That's the most idiotic thing I've heard in a while. This is not about what I want the MoS to say: this is me providing clarity from other sources as to what the MoS does and doesn't say. The MoS is not fit for purpose in many places, and this is one of them. Furthermore, I am following the British convention of LQ in this BrEng article. I do not care if you wish to follow the flawed MoS on non-BrEng articles, but not here. You interpret it differently to me: I interpret it correctly according to the language I am writing in, and if you cannot respect that, I suggest you confine your edits to those areas where it will be less contentious.

Ellipses: again, you misinterpret, and I suspect deliberately. There is no record of conversation (the bit you neglected to highlight). The quote is fine without the ellipses, or we may as well spray every quote in the encyclopaedia start and finish with dots, and that is past the point of ridiculous.

Enough with this disruption. This is the third pointless thread you have started over absolutely minuscule and needless changes, over your flawed interpretation of the flawed MoS. Move on, avoid BrEng articles when you decide to split the most pedantic of hairs, and we can all get on with doing something half useful, than having to listen to your cock-eyed interpretations over the placement of a fucking full stop. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(I began this comment before the final version of the above comment by SchroCat.)

If you disagree with WP:MOS, or if you believe it is flawed, vague, unclear, problematic, or inconsistent with what you believe to be accepted standards, I encourage you go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and propose changes. If you do, and if you argue cogently, I may support your proposed changes.

You say that WP:MOS is flawed. Flawed it may be, but it does describe reasonable, consistent rules, and it was developed according to the group mind of Wikipedians. So, yes, when I edit a Wikipedia article, I am obliged to follow WP:MOS, warts and all, not some other style guide that disagrees with WP:MOS. In my early work, I used to put spaces around em dashes. Another editor informed me that WP:MOS calls for unspaced em dashes. I disagree with it, but within the article space of Wikipedia, I am obliged to abide by it, and so I have.

Please note that MOS:LQ begins thus:

On the English Wikipedia, use logical quotation style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written.

Even if there is such a thing as BrEng Logical Quotes, differing from MOS:LQ, we must follow MOS:LQ style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. — Anomalocaris (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As above, I do not care how you chose to misinterpret LQ: I will follow it correctly, and this article is entirely correct within how LQ is correctly understood. Again, I advise you not to disruptively edit based on your flawed understanding. Move on: enough is enough. As to your last point: this article does follow LQ, as is fairly obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)