Talk:Ian Fleming/Archive 6

Edit warring
, how can we resolve this? ~ HAL  333  22:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles from IanFleming.com, official website of Ian Fleming Publications [which is already used as source on this very page ] and Der Spiegel are more direct to information than the current citation and also online for anybody to see for themselves. Unsure why they would be removed. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second bold edit, it's already sourced in the article. No need for citation overkill. ~ HAL  333  14:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One, please move on from whether the edit was bold or not [see Dispute resolution]. It doesn't meet standards of citation overkill which is multiple citations within a single sentence or six or more citations for one statement. Citation_overkillCladeal832 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I fail to see what whomever an ex of Fleming's married subsequently has to do with the Ian Fleming article. It's not like it was some love triangle or anything, just something that a non-notable person did long after splitting with Fleming. RS aside, I don't see how its relevant and is at best trivia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think User:Canterbury Tail might be confused over what is being discussed since not a word of the article would be changed, just citations. One there's no need to refer to anybody as non-notable since what do you know of her life anyhow, but that isn't what is being removed and I didn't want to add anything more about her, just citations. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since differing edits of yours have been reverted, which specific one are you wanting to propose restoring? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:Nikkimaria, there are current two sentences on Monique Panchaud de Bottomes. Not changing any words, but only adding a citation to from Der Spiegel to one sentence and  from Ian Fleming Publications to another, but keeps gets reverting citing non-reliable source.  Cladeal832 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the current sources? ~ HAL  333  18:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with additional information and I don't see every other incident where two or more citations are now being deleted from this article. I get you or maybe some others wouldn't add them, but that is supposedly the great thing here because it's a wiki and therefore anyone can edit and add things. I would try to avoid thinking things are 'wrong' and maybe just some good faith. As already mentioned, the additional citations, which aren't a violation of the guidelines on citation overload, are more direct to the information provided as well as online so anyone can see them for themselves for additional information rather than the current citation just a page number of book that's unavailable online. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never said that you or the sourcing are "wrong". Stop putting words in my mouth. The status quo is fine. No need to clog it up with overreferencing. ~ HAL  333  19:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple times removed these citations were removed for being unsure if they were reliable sources which is incorrect. Again, I did was quote you since you asked what's wrong. Maybe try what's right or wrong if you dislike being quoted. I get your opinion, but this isn't the status quo and seems very inconsistence since only deleting with my edits where there multiple sentences on this very article with more than one citation and no complaints about clogging expect for this. You might believe it's a clog, but that are ignoring the guidelines on what is and isn't citation overload and as Consensus state local consensus, which you don't have, do not overrule the guidelines.Cladeal832 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * this isn't the status quo I don't think you know what status quo means. Regarding your consensus claims, the onus is on you to prove that the inclusion of these references improves this article. And I don't see a single person agreeing with you. ~ HAL  333  19:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional information improves the article and clog on three or additional additional characters at the end of an sentence is not exactly clogged. The current cited source is a paywall article about another of his lovers. I was adding more direct information. Again ignoring my points to make this an issue of consensus. The onus is editors to comply with the guidelines which I have and the citations are supposedly being removed for now second false rational. One person said they didn't want additional about who his lover later married and one person was unsure if what was even being discussed. It's wiki not an academy, you don't ask permission before hand to edit. What_Wikipedia is not Please ignoring the guidelines as you often requested I do. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it one contributor doesn't want the article to be clogged then use the Template:Refn as a compromise.Cladeal832 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Having read both cite sources and the Telegraph article which is about another woman, I would say the other sources are more direct to the information stated.Cladeal832 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also please avoid violating the guidelines by suggesting I don't know what status quo means. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

citation to Lycett book better
I'm unsure what exactly is the issue with this. All the information is in the Lycett biography. If you're unsure, please read since it's an interesting story and hard to summarize. I understand if you'd like a page numb, but the guidelines state a page number isn't required for citations of a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#:~:text=is%20being%20cited.-,Books%20and%20print%20articles,or%20article%20as%20a%20whole. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A page number is not required if you are citing a book or article as a whole. Clearly you are not doing that here, you are citing a specific incident - and you will therefore need a page number.  Also, the first source (ianfleming.com) doesn't support the change made - in fact it doesn't mention Monique at all, which is unsurprising as the article is about a completely different woman and a completely different timeframe (1938-1945). Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsure what it meant by this since it's all about Monique Panchaud de Bottenes. Please read it again, http://www.ianfleming.com/timeline/affairs-of-the-heart The article makes mention it wasn't solely his mother, but also his physical distance that were part of why he ended the relationship. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Except the previous source you used was not this one, but https://www.ianfleming.com/love-constant-heart/ which, as you will see, isn't about Monique at all. Please be more careful. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've reverted this change pending additional discussion on its merits and specific wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please specify. It's a wiki, anyone may edit and unsure what is wrong with any words and particular adjectives used. Again, the burden is not on me to campaign and solicit votes in favor of edits nor is voting or polling to be used as a way to revert edits you dislike personally and please see What_Wikipedia is not. It's about discussion and building consensus through compromise. The words used are just rewording from the Lycett biography. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a wiki, and more people disagree with your edits than agree with them.  At this point, you stop making them and discuss it here. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are misrepresenting the situation and the conditions you are requesting is not in line with guidelies, see What is consensus%3F Cladeal832 (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again what specifically do you want to discuss. Again please see What_Wikipedia is not since the goal is suppose to be consensus, not pre-approval of the most people. Also my edits have been removed for 'not a reliable source' or 'missing page numbers' and which have been discussed and shown to be inaccurate in the first case and rectified in the second case. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to include this information, the burden is indeed on you to get consensus for it. I don't agree the minute details regarding his mother's actions are needed, nor do we need to be commenting on how "heartbroken" Monique may have been. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I wrote that his mother blamed Monique for the failure of his exam. From Lycett biography.


 * Amid more recriminations, she convinced herself that the reason for his failure was Monique, who had distracted him from his studies in Geneva. From now on, Ian's “fiancée” was on the hate list. and Already blaming Monique for distracting Ian from his Foreign Office exams, she was determined to make life as unpleasant as possible for her.

I removed a sentence stating his mother made him end the relationship. This is cited to Macintyre's biography on the wrong page, but this was all Macintyre wrote which does not support the current wording on the article. From Lycett biography contradicting the current wording.
 * He also became engaged, briefly, to a young Swiss woman named Monique Panchaud de Bottomes, until his mother intervened.
 * Although Eve did not ban her son's romance outright. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Later Lycett indicates - and several other sources corroborate - that his mother presented him with an ultimatum regarding the relationship, and her threats resulting in him deciding to break things off. This is consistent with the original wording here, as well as that of other sources - for example Cook states that "Eve put a stop to the liaison by threatening to have his trust fund income stopped". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I get you'd prefer no changes, but it inaccurate as well providing more details. I've taken the time to quote sources direct. No source, including the current one used in the citation from Macintyre, indicate his mother made him break the relationship which is the current version. Nobody negates his mother's involvement, but I disagree with the edit because the ultimatum was over cutting off his allowance, not the relationship and Lycett and other show Fleming himself decided to end his relationship for other reasons, hesitancy to settle down among them, which is not the current version. I honestly don't understand the hesitancy to change this and I'm trying to not take it personally and this ought be the about the improving the article, but I have yet to see any compromises. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that interpretation. Lycett states that "Ian was presented with a stark ultimatum by Eve. He must choose either Monique or London and, if he decided on the former, he must be prepared to forgo further financial backing". In other words, he had to choose to either have the relationship and no money, or have money. Similarly see the quote above from Cook - she made him break it off by threatening his financial security. Now, there may well have been other factors involved, distance or what have you, but the sources seem pretty clear that his mother's threat was what made him end it rather than anything else. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This ignores that Macintyre cited right now [which never states his mother made him break off the relationship, only intervened], not Lycett. This would ignored the first half of that sentence in Lycett [being Monique's interpretation] and also the first sentence of the next paragraph
 * Ian's decision was eased, perhaps even hastened, because he was running at least two other relationships at the same time.
 * I would take it as his mother made him make a choice between his allowance or his engagement, but that isn't making him breaking it off since he made his choice. So are all the other sources wrong when they bring up other factors? Would that be WP:OR. It's not for us to go with in other words or our personal interpretations nor ignore that other source since Ian Fleming was still seeing her after that mention you cited.Cladeal832 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also if we are going other people's interpretations, Monique's mad father blamed Ian Fleming [hence the threatened court case against him, not his mother] Cladeal832 (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As an aside, sources also disagree on this point - for example Cook says Eve paid him off, not Ian. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, there may well have been other things involved, but sources seem to agree that the primary decision-making factor was that his mother would cut him off if he kept it up - we can cite any number of those sources for that claim, such as Cook which explicitly states that she put a stop to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But Cook isn't the current citation and where does Cook mention the allowance since the allowance was Monique's interpretation according to Lycett and Monique didn't want to stop the relationship. How about cite these source if there are so many of them. SEEM TO AGREE would be WP:OR or interpreting Monique's interpretation as fact is also WP:OR rather just stating what it is in the source. I've shown specifically they didn't agree on it being the sole factor nor did she make him break it off and was trying to use a RS which stated so. If you agree there were other factors, why are you against any mention of it? Lycett specifically states she didn't outright oppose it so it's hard to square with a different interpretation being given as well as calling it Ian's decision. The current wording doesn't give even the nuance being stated. It bothers you that I was given too much detail, I'm fine to discuss that as well. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would a possible compromise to write the relationship ended disastrously mainly due to his mother's interventions or opposition or disapproval or manipulations [whatever wording] as well as blah, blah cited to Lycett and IanFleming.com. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already said we can cite other sources for this detail. For example, Cook states "Eve put a stop to the liaison by threatening to have his trust fund income stopped" - so we can cite Cook instead of Macintyre for that claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This quote cuts off the first half of the sentence where Cook wrote it was according to the interpretation of Ian Fleming's friend. put a stop and made him break off are not interchangeable wording and later Cook states it was Ian Fleming's decision and his brother Peter Fleming was given the same threat by their mother and decided to marry anyway unlike Ian Fleming because there were other factors to breaking off the engagement which I've repeatedly cited. I would hope Cook mentioning Peter Fleming getting marry despite the exact same situation with their mother would highlight how it was Ian Fleming's decision. You've never answered why all these other sources specifically cite other reasons and are explicit it was Ian Fleming's decision. Cladeal832 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between being persuaded by strength of argument, and being coerced into a choice by threats. Anyways, let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in on this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a violation of what the guidelines, see What_is_consensus%3F. Please don't WP:STONEWALL. It's not for us to wait for other opinions if it's a low interest topic. We are here to build consensus. None state he was coerced against his will to end the relationship. Consequences, such as his mother's disapproval of Monique or even cutting off this allowance, aren't the same as having no choice. Even Cook's mention of Ian Fleming's friend's view of the situation or Monique blaming his mother from Lycett are not explicit that she made him break off the relationship and both cite other reasons and both that it was his decision. Why ignore all these sources that both outright state there were other factors? Cladeal832 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a violation of any guidelines. We've gone back and forth, we've each stated our views, we don't appear to be convincing each other, so allowing for input from others is appropriate - whether informally or more formally through a 3O or RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly minor edit related to just using what is actually in the citations and isn't that contentious an issue to warrant this. I get we have been a bit off-topic on our own views and been debating the nature of making somebody do something, but this isn't about our views WP:OR, but what the sources shows and so far no source has been explicit that his mother made him break off his relationship including the one currently cited. Yes people blamed Eve Fleming and I'm not contesting her involvement, but to try to look at it another way, the sources state Eve Fleming blamed Monique for Ian Fleming not doing better in his exams and does that mean Monique made him fail or just Eve Fleming's viewpoint. It's not really a question and I don't wish to begin another debate, but just showing being blamed by a person doesn't negate Ian Fleming didn't do well in his exam nor Ian Fleming himself decided to break off his relationship.
 * I have brought up examples and refuting your citation of Macintyre or Cook which you don't seem to be contesting. What exactly am I not convincing you of and not convinced shouldn't trump ignoring the exact language used in the sources. Please don't withhold from forming a consensus which the guideline instruct us to try to do. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a minor edit, hence the fact that editors are disagreeing with you. ~ HAL  333  17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now we are off-topic debating this is or isn't a minor edit rather the information and citations at hand.
 * One, User:HAL333 does not count as a neutral third-party according WP:30 criteria. Disagreeing just to disagree isn't building consensus. You kept saying users disagree, but first it was over non-RS [shown to be false], then it was removed over missing pages numbers [rectified], and then finally removed for no provided reason beyond a request for discussion which is usually over process rather than the information in the article. Again, please contribute with legitimate objections and then try for compromise and consensus. The isn't I vote yes/no-type situation. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

All the current Macintyre citation only states He also became engaged, briefly, to a young Swiss woman named Monique Panchaud de Bottomes, until his mother intervened. and it is cited to the wrong page number. And from Oliver Buckton biograph As we have seen, his relationship with Monique ended disastrously due mainly to Eve's opposition, though distance between the lovers when Ian returned to England may have been a factor. and Abel Smith's biography only wrote that his mother insisted on breaking off through an allowance threat.

If I'm not mistaken, and please correct me, it seems like User:Nikkimaria's position is the relationship finally ended over his mother promising to cut off his allowance while I would word it word as the allowance threat was a factor in his choice of not getting married. Either way, it isn't what the source provided for the citation state. The she-stopped-it is Cook [originally wrote Cooper] is just relaying the interpretations of Fleming's friend and if anybody disagrees with that view, they haven't stated so. Nobody has provided any rationale for why all the sources citing it was his decision and there were other factors that ought to be just disregarded since I know given example after example.

Quoting from Gaming_the system Nowhere in the guideline is there a need for other contributors to weigh in on a discussion.
 * An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please read. Status_quo_stonewalling and Status_quo_stonewalling As well as these essays., Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", Revert only when necessary Cladeal832 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My position is that our sources generally agree his mother forced him to end the relationship by threatening to cut him off financially. As I've indicated, we can certainly change what we're citing for that claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read Reliable sources especially should directly support the statement. You haven't cited one source that explicitly state he was forced and ignore 10 other sources which clearly state there were factors including the Cook citation you cite as the opposite. Here is another one just for good measure. We are trying to summarize two years relationship into one or two sentences so please try to be flexible. I have pointed out cutting off the Cook citation showing he was referring to Ian Fleming's friends, but haven't responded to those points.Cladeal832 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources generally agree there were other factors and it was his decision. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this source, which interviewed primary sources in Vich, Switzerland, also confirms it Ian Fleming, not his mother, who paid off the father to prevent the court case. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some sources have proposed other contributing factors, but there is considerable variation in what those factors may have been. If we're trying to summarize a two-year relationship in one or two sentences as you suggest, focusing on the mother's ultimatum - the proximate cause, in some sources the only reason proposed - seems most appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Variation is not the same as contradiction and yes some source go into more detail than others. I figured that would be a good thing?
 * Given somebody an ultimatum isn't forcing them if they make their decision which both Cook and Lycett state it was. Again we are back to debating definitions of forced, a word no source uses. Why use word it similarly to the actual source such as http://www.ianfleming.com/timeline/affairs-of-the-heart Cladeal832 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not something similar to this wording, With various factors including his mother's disapproval and distance from his return to London, Ian Fleming ultimately decided to end the relationship after his mother threated to permanately cut off his allowance if he did not severe the relationship when she learned he had visited Monique while on assignment for Reuters in Switzerland with citation to Lycett and IanFleming.com? Cladeal832 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it is convoluted, repetitive, and not reflective of the preponderance of sources which indicate the main reason for the breakup was his mother's threat. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Never thought the wording was perfect, but that felt a bit needlessly harsh since you are the one who requested a discussion.
 * Noticed inaccurate wasn't on your list, but fine we'll keep at this as you again refuse to compromise or acknowledge that other sources are more detailed than others doesn't mean they get ignored. They were together for one to two years and his mother disapproved nearly the whole time. What if your suggestion and again, the current version doesn't reflect the more detailed sourcing and please stop ignoring the sources that specifically mentioned other factors regardless of main or not. I'm not against using main, but you still won't explain why ignore other sourcing. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If one source mention a detail and another source doesn't, what does that mean for you since I don't understand? Is it a contradiction or this Wikipedia article can't be any more detailed than the least detailed source i.e. This one citation states Ian Fleming was born in 1908 and this other says he was born in May 1908 and another says he was born May 28, 1908, would we only use the most common and only say Ian Fleming was born in 1908 and a specific date within 1908 doesn't go with the majority of sourcing.Cladeal832 (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is an unfair representation of what you are trying to get across, I would just like to understand since of course some sources will have more details than others, doesn't mean they get dismissed or discounted. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of due weight. If we have a bunch of sources that just say it was because of the mother and her ultimatum, a source that says it was the ultimatum and by the way he also had taken up with someone else, and then the estate that says it was the mother's disapproval and the distance... we can't just write it was the disapproval and distance. We can write that he ended the relationship because his mother threatened to cut him off financially. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get how these views are minority and majority positions rather than one citations is where Monique is mentioned in a single sentence and others spend more space to all the details. I mean it is minority view to state accurate information. Also how it the minority view when Andrew Lycett, Oliver Bucket, IanFleming.com. I don't understand, we can't just write mean you think I'm saying not to mentioning the threat to his allowance which is position I've never held. Also forced is very debatable language, if not inaccurate. You are giving undue weight to Cook's biography rather than any other source and Cook wrote, His mother told him to break off the engagement or face living on a reporter's income. They don't contradict each other by providing more details. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this situation you are proposing might be Cherrypicking than due weight and also WP:OR to again state he was forced. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's review the sources. Macintyre says the relationship ended because the mother intervened; Buckton says the mother "thwarted" the relationship with her threats of "financial repercussions"; Cook says his mother "told him to break off the engagement or face living on a reporter's income"; Simmons says his "mother scuppered his romance"; Simpson says the relationship ended because of the mother's disapproval; Lycett says the engagement ended because of his mother's ultimatum, eased by his other relationships; this says his "mother forced him to break it off"; this says "sa propre famille le contraint à rompre les fiançailles"; this says "La relazione non era però benvista dalla madre, e tornato a Londra fu costretto a rompere il fidanzamento con la ragazza."; this says the engagement was "quashed by his well-connected but overbearing mother". And ianfleming.com says it ended due to the distance and the mother's disapproval.
 * This review makes two things clear. First, every source attributes the relationship ending to the mother, at various degrees of agency; several explicitly state she forced him, while others state she threatened his financial security. Second, only one source attributes equal weight to the distance: ianfleming.com. Given these findings, I reaffirm what I stated above: the article should state that Fleming ended the relationship because his mother threatened to cut him off financially. We have plenty of sources to choose from to support that.
 * At this point, I'd be interested in hearing views from others on this proposal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to resolve this as we are suppose to attempt and lack of interest from other contributors isn't grounds for not discussing, please read Status_quo_stonewalling. Please don't WP:STONEWALL.Cladeal832 (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you just restate things as if it's new information. One source being more detailed isn't in conflict with the others. Whether it was told to. intervention or thwarted or whatever, it's not that same as not forced which even you can't find and still ignore all the ready citations availble. And you ignored the incidents already mentioned where they explicit it was his decision. I offer to mention his mother, even as the main cause, twice, and you insulted my wording. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Doing more research ought not to penalized or ignored. You are making a straw-man argument. I've never said it was equal weight on distance or anything like that. The discussion has never been about either not mentioned at the mother's threat at all nor about given equal weight to other factors. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand, but is your position that if two things are mentioned in a sentence, they must be of equal weight?
 * You citation for force doesn't use the word forced since it's in French and the word used is constrained which is the same as English. Maybe Google translator was different, but it's not exactly a great example for using forced. Also you misquote because it was sa propre famille which is family, not mother.
 * Also unsure why you differ more to "sofrep.com" than Ian Fleming Publications and several highly researched biographies specifically on the subject of Ian Fleming. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I used other languages, mainly Der Spiegel was solely on Monique Panchaud de Bottones as well providing an academic source at the bottom and in the end didn't cite because I wanted to defer to English sources since there were already so many. Unsure why start from a preconceived notion that Wikipedia current version is correct despite showing the current citation doesn't back it up and find sources not in English and usually just brief mentions to bolster your point rather than just use the wording of what the sources actually state and especially the ones with more details. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure if this will make a difference, but "sofrep.com" article puts the slim, dark-haired local beauty in quotation marks showing it was quoting of A. Lycett's biography of Ian Fleming so unsure why would not just use A. Lycett which I have requested repeated.Cladeal832 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Using words like findings comes across as WP:OR rather than just stating which source to cite you'd prefer. Would you be willing to compromise on the wording of Ian Fleming decided to end the relationship not using because to just after his mother's threat? Cladeal832 (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pointing out the current version has it that Ian Fleming broke his relationship with Monique Panchaud de Bottones and then got the job at Reuters which is inaccurate. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RE distance being a factor. According to A. Lycett's biography Monique and Ian Fleming saw each other in England over the holidays and she returned to Vich in early January 1932 and between then and April 1933 when he broke off the relationship, they only saw each other twice. Also quoting page 59 of A. Lycett's book:
 * * On his return from Russia he had formally broken his engagement to Monique. Again his mother's hand can be discerned. According to a later girlfriend, Ian was presented with a stark ultimatum by Eve. He must choose either Monique or London and if he decided on the former, he must be prepared to forgo further financial backing from her or his family.
 * Again showing it was his decision. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The current version has it that Monique Panchaud de Bottones and Ian Fleming were briefly engagement, but it last from the summer of 1931 to the spring of 1933 according A. Lycett's biography. That's not brief and so the current version in inaccurate on yet another front. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Revert of July 14, 2021

 * Cladeal832, you have not yet achieved consensus for the changes you want to make; please do not implement them until you have, particular if you are unwilling to accept amendments. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A major indicator of Status quo stonewalling according to the guidelines is a contributor is silence for a prolonged period of time on the Talk Page yet revert immediately when the edit is made. The edits recently made are changing my edits and then keep get reverting i.e. removing the word disastrously [which is Buckton's wording and Lycett's called the break-up ugly]. You are ignoring Reliable sources. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be citing guidelines without a good understanding of how/if they apply. For example you have re-restored your bold edit citing BRD - WP:BRD quite clearly indicates that it is not a reason to revert and that it is up to you to get consensus for your proposed changes, which you have still failed to do. I have stated my position clearly above, and have proposed means by which you could get additional input if you wish to persist. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't continue to insult my understanding. I find it hurtful and also a violation of civility guidelines. Civility If you believe I am misunderstanding something, cite the guidelines without the insults please. I revert your edits because they go against Reliable sources as I already stated. I suggest might read also Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".
 * I wrote you were stonewalling. If you disagreed, the onus is you to do so. Silence and consensus
 * I even tried to use a citation from Andrew Cook's biography since that was the one suggested by User:Nikkimaria and also used main [which a word Buckton uses]. I compromised with using disastrously since it was used by Buckton and Lycett used ugly rather going into the minute details of the threaten court cases and major paid outs. I don't wish to continue debating what's the difference between forced versus forced to decide or just plain decided 'or the nature of free-will overall as it's off-topic. I just like to use the terms used by the cite sources and not cherry pick and again Reliable sources Cladeal832 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote from WP:Silence and consensus: "Unsurprisingly, one may run into a discussion between two editors with a dispute who keep repeating and reiterating their thoughts; sometimes this occurs because they are afraid that if they stop, their failure to respond will be misconstrued as a sign that they consent. This interpretation is based on the false assumption that "a huge unending row" is the only alternative to "silence". This is not the case. As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like. Similarly, in the presence of a revert, there is neither silence nor consensus." I have stated my position above; you may disagree with it, but you may not simply ignore it. Again, it is up to you to gain consensus for the changes you want to make, and so far you have not done so. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not doing what I like. I suggested and made conpromises and simply restating more discussion after any refuting is stonewalling according to the guidelines. The burden of D in BRD is also on you otherwise don't revert according to the guidelines. I reverted your recent edits because Reliable sources which isn't about local consensus since you are violating the guidelines Consensus. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

From Andrew Lycett's Ian Fleming The Man Who Created James Bond Oliver Buckton's The World Is Not Enough A Biography of Ian Fleming From Andrew Cook's biography The Ian Fleming Miscellany From Robert Harling's Ian Fleming A Personal Memoir From Der Spiegel excerpt of Michael Marti and Peter Wälty's James Bond und die Schweiz From Ian Fleming Publications I understand the critique of me being convoluted in the article, but the relationship was convoluted. Just simply writing he got engaged and then his mother made him break it off is both oversimplified and misleading to what is in the citations used. If other contributors prefer other citations, please discuss, but unsure why only use a sofrep.com article [which the full quote was But his overbearing mother, disapproving of the match, forced him to break it off, after using emotional, professional, and financial pressure on him. and I used the word pressure so unsure how that's a conflict] based on A. Lycett's research since it quotes it directly or a tourism brochure in French rather than footnoted and primary researched biographies in particular A. Lycett's biography sites interview of Monique de Panchaud de Bottones herself and Marti and Wälty who interviewed her family and friends in Vich, Switzerland. I'm only trying to not cherrypick and not take citations out of context or contradict other sourcing. I tried to address the concern of too much minute details and other factors, in particular distance and time apart, being perceived as given equal weight to his mother's reported ultimatum while still noting there were other factors. How would other contributors, beyond just copyediting or reverting, accurately summarize these reliable sources?Cladeal832 (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In early March 1933, Ian returned to Switzerland for a short skiing holiday at the Panchauds. Richardson-Hart again obligingly gave him some veneer of official cover: Ian was there to monitor German radio transmissions in the period of Hitler's notorious “Reichstag election” in Germany on 5 March.... On the personal front, however, there was no hiding the fact that Ian's relationship with Monique had reached an impasse. No wedding had yet been planned, and Monique and her very respectable parents were demanding an explanation. p. 55
 * On his return from Russia he had formally broken his engagement to Monique. Again his mother's hand can be discerned. According to a later girlfriend, Ian was presented with a stark ultimatum by Eve. He must choose either Monique or London and if he decided on the former, he must be prepared to forgo further financial backing from her or his family. Once more, too, there were ugly and unforeseen consequences. For, furious at Ian's cavalier treatment of his daughter, Monsieur Panchaud, threatened to sue for what in Switzerland was the serious offence of breach of personal contract. Ian had to utilize all his personal funds to ward off a court case. p. 59
 * Ian's decision was eased, perhaps even hastened, because he was running at least two other relationships at the same time. p. 60
 * As we have seen, his relationship with Monique ended disastrously due mainly to Eve's opposition, though distance between the lovers when Ian returned to England may have been a factor.
 * His mother told him to break off the engagement or face living on a reporter's income.
 * Fleming would be have been mildly unnerved by the scale of her intimate awareness of his affiliations, including his disastrous relationship with a certain Monique Panchaud de Bottomes from Geneva,
 * Twice Reuters sends the young journalist to Switzerland, twice Fleming takes the opportunity to meet Monique - his mother is outraged and threatens her son with disinheritance. Monique's father also harasses Fleming, albeit with different intentions: Lucien Panchaud de Bottens wants to go to court if the young man breaks his marriage promise.
 * Ian has to decide - and he chooses the mother and the family fortune. In order to avert a trial with Monsieur Panchaud de Bottens, Fleming pays all his private assets to the father of the dishonored Swiss woman. And with that, Monique Panchaud de Bottens disappears from the life of Ian Fleming.
 * Throughout the summer of 1931 Ian and Monique were inseparable but after returning to London, distance and his mother's disapproval contributed to the decline and eventual severance of their relationship.


 * I will try to no longer ignore suggestions and concerns nor cause needless reverts over helpful cleanups and amendments. Sometimes I was so anxious to get my side out, I put it in the discussion or edit before even reading the responses all the way through although it probably was obvious to those reading I wasn't paying them enough attention. Please note I have reread all the response. I shouldn't have focus only on myself and instead appreciated any help in a discussion even as it got heated and repetitive and didn't really paid enough attention to the concerns. I should have been more succinct and no more longwinded and over-stuffed responses. So far in discussion I've focused and pushed more on the disagreements and should it hopefully be revisit refocused on the parts where there was already agreement and I still will try to build consensus around the disputed parts i.e. main pressure or disastrously, If consensus isn't reached, then so be it.
 * Before getting into any disputed parts, may I suggest go to last cleanup edit by User:Nikkimaria here . I'm unsure if anyone disputes his mother was known as Eve, he died at Kent and Canterbury Hospital [it's in the citation], he didn't fail the Foreign Office exam and only failed in getting a job offer as shown here, wikilink Daily Mail, switching the wikilink on his wife's first husband to Shane O'Neill, 3rd Baron O'Neill, etc... Unsure if others would have another suggestion, but I was curious so I looked up how to use on Merriam-Webster  and it's [First Name] [Last Name],  [Last Name at Birth],
 * If there are amendments, all the better [probably didn't mean that before, but I do now]. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but done what? Cladeal832 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, understand now. Thank you. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Fleming as Book Collector
I added a citation to an article about Fleming as a book collector. It was removed with no reason. He founded the journal, The Book Collector. Listen to The Book Collector's first podcast! Percy Muir's article 'Ian Fleming: A Personal Memoir' from the Spring 1965 issue, read by Rupert Vansittart.

The Fleming collection at Indiana University isn't even mentioned on this page. I think this is a major omission.Kmccook (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a section about this under "Legacy."Kmccook (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Him being a book collecter is not worthy of first sentence inclusion. That's undue weight. But I'm not opposed to it - or the IU collection - being included in the article. How much do literary sources such as his biographies discuss this aspect of his life? ~ HAL  333  20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The section I added about Fleming's book collecting has been deleted and I've been accused of "sock puppetry." I am baffled why adding well documented facts about the book collecting of Fleming has been deleted and why I am locked out of editing. I wrote a substack entry, "Ian Fleming & Wikipedia" about it since no one deleting my additions will respond. I used the image of his special book plate.Kmccook (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your block log is clear and I can not find anyone accusing you of sock puppetry. Am I missing something? ~ HAL  333  03:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Below is what I see when I tried to add about the book collection:

09:29, 5 March 2021 Wugapodes talk contribs protected Ian Fleming [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (Persistent sock puppetry) (hist) (thank)

I don't understand. I had written a piece about the Lilly Library collection and had some citations and I thought that a bit about Fleming's book collector activities would be a good add to the page. I wasn't controversial or w/o documentation. Does someone think that Fleming's book collection hurts his image? It enhances it to me.Kmccook (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a paragraph with citations and got this: 20:03, 17 July 2021 diff hist +772‎  Ian Fleming ‎ →‎Legacy: added information about Fleming as founder of The Book Collector and the collection at Indiana University Library. Tag: Reverted. It doesn't say why. Someone just decided that documentation about Fleming's book collecting was unacceptable. Why?Kmccook (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Book Collector is a primary source. Do you have a reliable secondary source that could support this content? ~ HAL  333  14:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel as if I am on trial. I am not trying to do something nefarious here. The Book Collector's interview with people who worked with Fleming would be the secondary source. Here is a brief note from 1969 in the Times Literary Suplement: “The Agent’s Secret.” TLS. Times Literary Supplement (1969), no. 5946 (2017): 36–. Here is the website of Indiana University Lilly Library's 2018 Exhibit: Ian Fleming: From Bibliophile to Bond The Ian Fleming website has a page about this: Ian Fleming: Book Collector.Kmccook (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is persecuting you... This is a Featured-class article and you keep adding primary sources and disregarding the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the basic workings of Wikipedia. You've been editing since 2007. And no, The Book Collector, even if includes interviews of third persons, will never be a secondary source when it is used to source information about itself. I've added a single sentence, which is due, about the IU Fleming collection. Could you provide a url for The Time Literary Supplement? ~ HAL  333

How can this be a first class article if it ignores something to which Fleming devoted so much time? You most certainly are throwing chaff at my simple attempt to add information. I understand that Wikipedia does not like women editors. I do not know why. You may have decided that women have no right to edit the Fleming article or that identifying Fleming as the founder of The Book Collector hurts his image. But he was. The URL for the TLS article is here: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/the-agents-secret/ I led with the TLS citation and put it back in the article under "the 1950s" when Fleming took over the journal. You can delete it if you wish. I won't try anymore. Very discouraged. Kmccook (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I see the citation to “The Agent’s Secret.” TLS. Times Literary Supplement (1969), no. 5946 (2017): 36. was deleted/ Reverted. Congratulations, HAL.Kmccook (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Podcast by James Fleming on Collecting Ian Fleming
I added a link to the podcast, *John Gilbert: 2021. "Collecting Ian Fleming" Podcast, read by James Fleming. It was removed because Nikkimaria thought it didn't belong. That's not a reason that I understand. It is an excellent podcast about variant editions of Fleming's books.Kmccook (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you feel it offers for this article in particular? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you listen to it you learn about the variant editions of Ian Fleming's books, the various covers, etc. It is a very interesting podcast read by Fleming's nephew about the difference in editions of Ian Fleming's Bond novels in England. This was just posted a few days ago. Kmccook (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding it to List of James Bond novels and short stories. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Stepson?
The Wiki page for Dr. No (film), discussing the original casting of Bond, says Fleming's stepson Paul Morgan claims that Fleming preferred Edward Underdown. (Source: Some kind of hero : 007 : the remarkable story of the James Bond films by Matthew Field and Ajay Chowdhury)

By what connection would Fleming have had a stepson? Valetude (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ian's stepson is Colonel Raymond O'Neill, 4th Baron O'Neill, Ann Fleming's son by Shane O'Neill, 3rd Baron O'Neill. No idea who Paul Morgan might be. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Visigoth500, you've not demonstrated that your proposed addition is significant enough to warrant inclusion, nor that you have consensus to include it. Please undo your addition and avoid edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)