Talk:From Russia, with Love (novel)

Laurencebeck
Can you stop edit warring please. Everything you are doing either breaches the MoS, or breaks the formatting. You are also at WP:3RR, do you are best advised not to revert again. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please observe that a reader when clicking to open the Life Magazine reference to see the President Kennedy prefereces for 10 favorite books has presented the cover page to the particular magazine issue. The Wikipedia reader has no idea where to go to locate the relevant information that the main Wikipedia article gives information upon.
 * The reference that the reader has presented to him is in the References section of the main article. The particular reference is here, reference 64 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Russia,_with_Love_(novel)#cite_note-Time:_Kennedy-68.
 * Sidey, Hugh (17 March 1961). "The President's Voracious Reading Habits". Life. 50 (11): 59. ISSN 0024-3019. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2011.


 * There is not a thing that tells a reader what to do with the magazine's cover as presented.


 * I have done what is possible to direct a reader to the relevant page where the information on the ten favourite books appears, p. 59. The Life magazine piece on the President's reading commences a few pages earlier, on p.55.


 * If WP:3RR is a conditioned position that is supposed to have some sensation to it, I cannot say that I deserve it.


 * . . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The sourcing is in line with all requirements as laid down by the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

> please note '''Wikipedia:Citing sources. . Linking to Google Books pages''' > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages < < "Google Books sometimes allows numbered book pages to be linked to directly. . . . No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."

The Look Magazine from March 1961 availability is on Google Books and is used in the From Russia with Love (novel) Wikipedia article.

In my edit I took the Wikipedia reader to a specific page with the Google Books publication of the Look Magazine by specific word search of kennedy ten favorites Ian Fleming LIFE 1961 LOVE which found this page https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vUUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA59&dq=kennedy+ten+favorites+Ian+Fleming+LIFE+1961+LOVE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUlNqa0vToAhUMOisKHeVIBTkQ6AEISzAE#v=onepage&q=kennedy%20ten%20favorites%20Ian%20Fleming%20LIFE%201961%20LOVE&f=false.

The Wikipedia guideline is "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."

The page was found by me by reference to chosen words sought within the magazine. The page was not found by reference to the page number itself.

Nevertheless your guideline as you would be informed by Wikipedia for linking to Google Books pages is "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."

I have added a page link and it has been removed with the cause that it offends by your evaluation Manual of Style.

The possibility, I trust, would be that you consider the re-installation of the reference that links to the Look Magazine page that is specific to President Kennedy's choice of ten favourite books. Wikipedia:Citing sources > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages

. . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you write in a single coherent sentence what you are trying to ask? I don't have either the inclination or the energy to translate the twelve lines of gibberish above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages


 * "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."


 * Page links in Google Books sources do not offend Manual of Style.
 * . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither do the links to overall publication. And you need to look at exactly what was reverted. You messed up so so so much in each of your edits, it's difficult to believe you've been on WP for more than five minutes. What the hell was going through your mind with this edit? Do you actually think that is in any way beneficial to anyone at all? Telling people to scroll to a page when the page number if already there. Readers are not morons: they don't need to be told how to navigate from page one to page 59 of a magazine. Ditto this edit. Are you so stupid that you think this is a step forward in the article? And this: repeating exactly the same reference that is already there??? You have been on WP for seven years, and every time I see your edits on the Bond pages, they are like seeing a clueless newbie making their first clumsy edits. if you can't be bothered to learn the basics then you're going to keep getting reverted because of the nonsense you keep doing. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

For the Wikipedia reader, you give the link to the Look Magazine published by Google Books on the internet, which observable link to that reader only contains this information > ''Sidey, Hugh (17 March 1961). "The President's Voracious Reading Habits". Life. 50 (11): 59. ISSN 0024-3019. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2011''.

Your link takes the reader to the cover only of the publication.

The article begins on p.55 and the President's list of 10 books is on p.59. While the information that can be read by touching the reference on the article page, again I repeat here> ''Sidey, Hugh (17 March 1961). "The President's Voracious Reading Habits". Life. 50 (11): 59. ISSN 0024-3019. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2011''. does contain the lone figure 59 (the page number in the publication where the list is printed) it is meaningless to a browsing Wikipedia reader like me. The isolated number 59 does not tell me to scroll to p.59 of the magazine. Within what a reader may see I added to in previous edits to indicate that scrolling to p.59 will find what the Wikipedia article text draws to the reader's attention.

You, as a guardian of British popular culture in Wikipedia, have your concept of the greater appropriatness of what should be accessible, but I cannot see that a direction to a publication's front cover with no direction to contents therein is telling anyone anything. Again, you are the representative of Her Majesty's culture. With hope, receive the necessary deference owed to you.--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would like to change the way the standard method of reference formatting is done to include the words "turn to page xxx", then you'll need to open an RfC to suggest that. The problem with changing the link to the direct page is that the Google Book link works differently wherever you are. For some parts of the world, the specific page is not accessible, while in others it is. Taking to the front cover is the 'least bad' option; at least people will be able to flick a couple of pages to see the magazine index, where they can verify the existence of the article, at least. For those lucky parts of the world that do have access to the exact page, they can navigate there in the normal way, without any idiotic instructions telling them how to turn a page, or similar. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Cuts
I know that one should assume good faith, but a great deal of properly sourced material was cut in February by an IP. Does anyone object if I put it back in? --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly yes as it seemed far too much detail for the article. Also the IP gave reasons in the edit summaries for the deletions, several relating to reliability of sources as well as bloat, so that would need to be discussed as well before re-adding any material. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I would have to disagree. First, merely giving a reason in one's edit summaries does not automatically make it a good reason. Second, the IP called this article unreliable Lost in Translation: James Bond’s Istanbul without giving any reason for why he considered it unreliable. Merely asserting a source is unreliable is not the same thing as proving that the source is unreliable. As far I can see, The American Interest is considered to be a reputable source. Generally, speaking one has to make a reference to a RS saying a source is unreliable-merely asserting that claim is not good enough. Given that much of this novel takes place in Turkey, adding some material about the reception of the novel in Turkey would seem to give a proper world-wide perspective. At present, the article only gives the British perspective on this novel. Given the fact that this is a novel by a British author written for a British audience, I have no objection to that, but I feel that having the Turkish perspective is only proper. Likewise, given the fact that several of the major characters are Russian, looking at how Russians are depicted in the books is useful. Finally, the same is true with the picture of France. In the book, it is made quite explicitly clear that Grant must kill Bond in France because in the world of this novel the French press is corrupt, left-wing and controlled by Soviet agents.
 * The article says that Fleming visited Istanbul, which inspired the novel, but no longer mentions the pogrom that he saw first-hand, which definitely influenced the book. The picture of Turks in the book as basically savage and brutal is objectionable, but to be fair to Fleming, he did see very objectionable things going on in the streets of Istanbul during his visit, which seems to have the effect of affirming his prejudices. I know one is supposed to assume good faith, but I rather suspect the reason the material from Singer's article was deleted is because Singer calls Fleming a racist for way he depicted the Turks. James Bond is right up with Harry Potter, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, Winston Churchill, the Beatles, Dr. Who, William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens as a sort of cultural icon that has become a symbol of Britishness/Englishness around the world. The Bond novels of the 1950s might have been forgotten today had they not been turned into a very popular film series in the 1960s. But the fact that a lot of what Fleming wrote was downright racist in his novels makes the inclusion of James Bond novels as a problematic icon, a problem which some editors have decided to solve by merely deleting anything that relates to the racism and anything else that makes Fleming look bad in the Bond novels. I suspect that was the real reason why that IP called Singer's article unreliable. And this is just one of Fleming's novels. Look at Live and Let Die where there are only two types of black characters-the good ones who who are submissive to whites and the bad ones who are not. There are no other black characters. That was mentioned at one point, but has since been removed.
 * At present, the article says only Kerim Bey is one of Fleming's more memorable characters. Which is fine as far it goes, but does give the highly misleading impression that Fleming had nothing against Turks. But just look at some of the lines from the book that Singer quoted. After Bond shakes hands with Kerim Bey, he reflects: "It was a strong Western handful of operative fingers—not the banana skin handshake of the East that makes you want to wipe your fingers on your coattails." And at another point, Kerim says of the Turks: "That is the only way to treat these damned people. They love to be cursed and kicked. It is all they understand. It is in the blood. All this pretence of democracy is killing them. They want some sultans and wars and rape and fun. Poor brutes, in their striped suits and bowler hats. They are miserable. You’ve only got to look at them." That is more in tune with Fleming's view of the Turks, and this article at present is giving a very misleading impression by only citing Eco's remark about Kerim Bey as being a memorable character. Why shouldn't that be discussed in the article? In the article on the film Braveheart, there is a discussion about the controversy about that film's unflattening picture of the English, where every single English character is a complete and total bastard. Why shouldn't there a discussion in this article about the claim that how "sultans and wars and rapes" are "fun" for Turks as this is in their "blood"? What this book is saying is that Turks are a pathologically warped and violent people, and to be frank, I'm a little shocked that I seem to be the only person around here who is concerned about the way that all of this has been removed from the article solely because some IP has declared the source "unreliable" and "POV-pushing". Even the title of bey is very odd. Bey is an Ottoman title that was the equivalent to a knighthood. So Kerim Bey would translate as Sir Kerim in English. Given the novel is set in 1955 under the Turkish republic, this is more than a little strange.
 * Likewise, all of the material relating to gender roles and the heteronormative aspects of the book was deleted by the same IP. The way that Rosa Klebb is depicted as being especially monstrous and evil because she is a lesbian is not to modern tastes to put it mildly, which seems to be that IP's problem with that material. I had the same problem with another article, where that material was likewise deleted, again by another IP. That is not excessive detail-Fleming goes out of his way in this book to stress Klebb's lesbianism makes her into an especially awful person, something which at present the reader would never know. My interest here is purely scholarly, but this all seems an effort to whitewash Fleming, and I believe that is not helpful. But if you were willing to discuss this further, let's see if we can work something out. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted text
Moved from my talk page:
 * Perhaps you were a little hasty, reverting all my changes after 15 minutes. I don't know what you mean by "introduces uncertainty of the subject".


 * The sexual relationship of Bond and Romanova, and his continuing doubt, are essential themes of the story, and it is a weakness of the plot summary that these things are not mentioned. Later we read of "a film of their love-making". A reader might ask, What love-making?


 * I am going to restore my amendment, shortened a little, and also restore the reference to the Spektor.


 * Hope you agree. April 31st (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page, response to follow below. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly,, thank you for coming to my talk page with the note, but it's a bit better to have the discussion on this page - a much-watched FA talk page - rather than the backwater of my talk page.
 * In terms of "introduces uncertainty of the subject", I mean that you changed "Bond meets Romanova" to "He meets Romanova". The previous person mentioned was Darko Kerim, so the "he" refers to him, which is why Bond's name is used again - it clarifies who "he" is.
 * The wording "they have sex. She begins to fall in love with him; he begins to feel fond of her" is fairly trite stuff. This is a plot summary, which covers the main points of the action, but without going into detail. The addition blots the section with no real loss of understanding for the reader.
 * "they had stabbed each other to death": this is possibly wrong: the text does not say how it happens, just Bond's supposition of it.
 * Don't forget, this has gone through two high-level community review processes as well as the several hundred thousand views it has had since becoming an FA, and no-one has been at all confused by the current wording. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)