Talk:Dr. No (novel)/Archive 1

Page move
According to the first UK edition of Dr. No, illustrated here there is correctly a period after Dr. I will be fixing the links accordingly shortly. I've also replaced the 2002 reprint cover with the 1958 first edition, which clearly shows a period after Dr. 23skidoo 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dr. No first edition.jpg
Image:Dr. No first edition.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 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 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The deletion of this image is in violation of one of the tenets of WP:NOVEL and they've been notified. 23skidoo 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Drnopenguin.jpg
Image:Drnopenguin.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DrNoNovel.jpg
Image:DrNoNovel.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Making political points in Contemporary Popular Reference section
While I question the need for this section at all, I found this sentence to violate a neutral point-of-view: The reference is curious as the fictional villain Dr. No is a biracial male raised by extended family like Sen. Obama.  This is completely irrelevant to the article, and, in my opinion, is a thinly-veiled accusation of racism thrown at Sen. McCain. The fact that the NY Times would refer to Sen. Coburn as Dr. No, when Coburn is not biracial and was not raised by extended family, discredits the claim. "Dr. No" is simply a way of pointing out that someone blocks a lot of bills.--AndrewSaint (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support your edit. If 0.000001% of the people who use the moniker "Dr. No" for politicians have any actual knowledge of the character's background, I'll be very surprised. I agree - the racial speculation was unacceptable. I'd need to find a link before it was added to the article, but there's a local alderman here in Calgary, Canada who regularly blocks (or opposes) bylaws that require the spending of a lot of money, and he's also known as "Dr. No". Near as I can tell, he's as WASP as they come. 23skidoo (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to delete the section on the grounds that this article is about Dr. No, a James Bond novel. Nothing has been provided to suggest that these contemporary uses are directly inspired by the novel. If anything they're more likely to be inspired by the film. 23skidoo (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted an unregsistered user's attempt to put the information back. Show me a source that says, for example, that Barack Obama is being nicknamed Dr. No directly because of the 1950s novel by Ian Fleming, not the 1962 film or the character Julius No, then let's talk. Once again, this line of information -- if relevant -- belongs in the article on the movie or the character. 23skidoo (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Shroedinger, you are starting to seriously piss me off
You don't WP:OWN this article. Superfluous details to you, are not to others. There is a reason WHY Dr. No has no hands-- it relates directly to theft. And why even mention dextrocardia (which this article does) without mentioning the fact that dextrocardia is the reason WHY Dr. No is alive, with no hands? By contrast, what's the point of mentioning some of the things this synopsis has, such as whether the poison in the last book was tetrodotoxin, or that it was administered by Rosa Klebb? Not important, except in THAT novel. All we need to know is that Bond is in Jamiaca recovering from poisoning in that novel.

As for the spiders, Bond himself is aware that the point of them is not their poisonousness (which isn't large as they aren't meant to kill him) but the fear factor of the fact that he is supposed to encounter them in the dark (though he doesn't, due to the lighter and wire). So it is their size that is relevant. Thus, I'm going to revert, and if you're tempted to re-revert, we should solicit opinions of other people who know this novel. S B Harris 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude, but seeing as how I'm currently reviewing this article for GAC, I thought I may as well give my opinion. First, this isn't such a big deal as to become "seriously" pissed off about it, IMHO; let's calm down.  The plot summary version here (prior to Sbharris' last revert) already mentions theft: "No had previously been a member of a Chinese Tong, but after he stole a large amount of money from their treasury, he had been tortured and had his hands cut off by order of the Tong leaders."  The cause and effect is established: No stole money, so he was tortured, and had his hands cut off (note the comma placement, so torture and hand removal are separate things).  So, the addition of "as a sign of punishment for theft" does indeed seem redundant, if not superfluous.  I believe that the addition of No's dextrocardia to the plot summary is interesting, since it ties into his background and (I guess?) explains why he's so cruel: he was shot, the Tong thought him dead (?), but he survived because of a congenital defect.  I think it's incorrect to refer to this rare trait as a "freak accident", however; if this brief explanation for his survival were to stay in the summary, it should be reworded to be made more brief/less sensational.  It's also confusing for the summary to say (which it does currently) that No was "shot through the heart", but he survived because he wasn't shot through the heart -- this needs to be clarified, if only because it reads poorly.
 * As for the size of the spiders, it's only one word. If the spiders are indeed notably large, call them large.  I hope this helps, María ( habla  con migo ) 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One edit and I "start to piss you off"? I actually find that quite funny... Oh, and no: I don't think this is my article: I think this is an article I've been working on recently. No more and no less. Just because I changed one of your edits, please try and keep a sense of perspective and balance.
 * Although I don't agree with the changes made I'm not going to be as petty as to get into an edit war. Life is too short. Try and remember this, however: this is a plot summary. Whether Dr. No has hands or claws if not crucial to the plot, neither is how he came to have the hands or claws. Please see WP:PLOTSUMNOT for further information and if you want to talk about it further, without the aggressive notes or profanity, then I'll be glad to chat it over a little with you. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. As for the spiders, I didn't change your edit, so I'm not entirely sure what you're point is.... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the size of the spiders. However, I think you're missing the point about Julius No. The punishment for theft is to kill you and leave your corpse handless as a sign to others that you've been killed for theft. Of course the Tong in question intended to kill him and thought he was dead; he makes that clear to Bond. No's handlessness and the reason for it and essential plot points, certainly covered by WP:PLOTSUM. I agree with the changes made since, to make this clear. And by the way, the thought-experimental cat with its life/death in quantum superposition is a mental creation of Schroedinger or Schrödinger, but never "Schrodinger." S  B Harris 20:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"No" or "no"
Is doctors name "No": an oriental name "No" or an english word 'no' used as name? --RicHard-59 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)