Talk:James Bond (literary character)/Archive 1

No other actor pictures?
How come we don't have pictures of the other actors playing Bond? KFan II 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel Craig is the current Bond, which is the only reason why we have him here. The others aren't really discussed yet. Most of that is at James Bond. It has to probably be sorted out with a section here that would justify all the images (technically again). I'll get around to something like this soon. See Doctor - that's kinda what I'm talking about here. K1Bond007 04:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no-ones seen him in a bond film yet I think a picture of Connery or Moore would be better since they were bond for 7 movies each --Astrokey 44 12:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But he is Bond and people have seen him as Bond. Eventually we'll get images (perhaps a collage) of all the Bonds in the article in the same vein as the Doctor. It's on my to-do list. K1Bond007 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * collage was a good idea, made one from the promotional photos --Astrokey 44 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Just as a note, I don't think the image can be counted as promotional, although it may be comprised of promo shots. Photoshopped together, it would be simply fairuse. I corrected this and gave it a little more detailed description. K1Bond007 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the one above me. ~Chektt 12:32 November 18, 2006 (not UTC)

About the Modern Bond
So, if I understand, the modern Bond is a German-born British, more precisely English, right? Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not English, Scottish. Emperor001 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexist?
Is he really deserving of this title and thus being placed in the catagory? He has sex with a lot of women, which may make him a womanizer, but does he at any time express his belief in the superiority of men over women? (If he has, then I immediatly drop the argument). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madhackrviper (talk • contribs).
 * Yeah, he's pretty sexist in most, if not all, media. Fleming's Bond is pretty bad, though perhaps more in tune with the times. M in GoldenEye flat out called him a sexist - other than that Brosnan's Bond was pretty lax in that department. Connery on the other hand had numerous sexist scenes. Example in Goldfinger he meets Felix while he's with a girl in Miami. He smacks her on bottom and tells her to say goodbye, following that up with "man talk." :P
 * Alrighty then, argument excepted! --Madhackrviper 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

General criticism of article
This whole affair smacks of fanwankery. It has clearly been put together by individuals who are far too serious about this very fictional character. Chris 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

MI6 and SIS
MI 6 IS known as the Secret Intelligence Service, see the MI6 page for reference!


 * In one film M says they work for MI7. I think it's From Russia With Love but I can't remember for certain. It later becomes MI6 in another film. If anyone knows which film this was then I think it should be mentioned. Richard75 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In no film did any character mention that Bond worked for MI7. This statement is wrong therefore not worth mentioning


 * Bernard Lee says it in his scene as M in Dr No. --Straw Cat (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the subtitles say MI6. Emperor001 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fan wankery indeed
I would have to say that this entire article is one huge glaring error. There should be two different interpretations of the Bond character. The character from the book is very much different from the one in the movies. Its like night and day. Mashing them all up together like this isn’t giving anyone a clear picture of Bond.

I would prepose that there should be a distinction between the literary description of the Bond character, and a cinematic one.

80.229.220.14 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Agreed! The mix of the two is unsalvageably confusing.

It's worse than that. The original Ian Fleming Bond is conflated with subsequent work by other (lesser) authors. It's like including fan fiction in the description. For my money, Fleming's Bond is the original, the movie Bond is an important theme in modern pop culture, and the derivitave works are perhaps worth mentioning if they've had any success. But don't mix them all up. Steve Graham (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR and the League of Extraordinary Gentleman
Just to be clear, WP:NOR prevents "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material" from being included in articles. It is certainly possible that this interpretation is not novel, but merely sourcing some of the facts to the comics would not address that issue. The opinions and analyses would also need to be sourced to reliable publications (i.e. not fan boards or the like) and represent enough of a consensus that they are worthy of standing alone in the article. Croctotheface 11:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Gin or Vodka Martinis?
I was looking an answer to wether Bond drinks traditional gin martinis, or does he prefer vodka martinis, but the article goes both ways without saying if the source is from the novels or the movies.

See: ''Bond is famous for ordering his vodka martinis "shaken, not stirred." ... He also drinks and enjoys gin martinis, champagne, and bourbon. According to www.atomicmartinis.com Bond consumes 317 drinks of which 101 are whisky, 35 sakes, 30 glasses of champagne and a mere 19 vodka martinis.''

So, which it is, or what was Fleming's version? The Merciful 12:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of joining 00 section
In Chapter 5 of Goldfinger, Bond is described as having been in the Double-O section for six years. Goldfinger was published in March 1959, and various cultural references, such as the introduction of the Series B £5 note (Chapter 7) and the expansions to Idlewild Airport (Chapter 22) place the action of the novel in the late 1950s. The exact year can be calculated more accurately from Goldfinger's age. In Chapter 6 he is described as having arrived in England in 1937, age twenty. This would put his birth year at around 1917. In Chapter 17 Goldfinger describes how he has made "a large sum of money in twenty years", presumably meaning since 1937; this would suggest a date of 1957. However, in Chapter 23 Bond remembers an aeroplane crash that took place over Persia, "back in '57", implying a later date. In Chapter 2 Mr du Pont mentions how he has seen Goldfinger's passport, which gives his age as forty-two. If Goldfinger was born in 1917, he would be forty-two in 1959. M speculates in Chapter 7 and Goldfinger confirms in Chapter 22 that the latter is an agent of SMERSH. According to Chapter 5 of Thunderball, SMERSH was disbanded in 1958. With 1957 and 1959 both ruled out, the only possible remaining date for the action of the novel is thus 1958. If Bond had been in the 00 section for six years in 1958, he joined it in 1952. This doesn't sit very comfortably with Bond's own description, in Chapter 20 of Casino Royale, of the two assassinations he carried out to achieve 00 status, and which appear to have taken place during the Second World War. The first killing was of a Japanese cipher clerk in New York, and in Chapter 1 of Live and Let Die Bond's arrival at Idlewild is described as "his first sight of America since the war", suggesting that the death of the Japanese took place during that conflict - and before December 1941 at that. The second killing was of "a Norwegian who was doubling against us for the Germans", though of course the Germans referred to could be the forces of the German Democratic Republic rather than the Third Reich. However, these points, though worth mentioning, do not contradict the 1952 date. Opera hat 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Assertion
This statement is confusing: "He has been portrayed on film by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig, the last interpretation being the only one with an official fictional biography of the character." Anybody have any idea what the bold section means? James Bond had an official backstory (revealed through dialogue) before the Daniel Craig film, even if we didn't see his first case. Any reason why this line should be retained? --Chancemichaels 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Actors
"The first actor to portray James Bond was Sean Connery in Dr. No, released in 1962." This is true of the EON Pictures Bond, but famously not true overall. Barry Nelson played Bond in a television production earlier. I would change this, but the whole article is slanted toward the EON Pictures Bond and needs adjusting. --Tysto 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Popov declared to a group of Italian journalists in 1981, shortly after his death at his residence outside Cannes"
Surely that should be 'shortly before his death'?

Or did Popov only live twice...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.84.34 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Interpretations
i feel that the james bond character should be split into different artcles depending on the actor who portrayed him each actor gave something different to the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an idea... don't know what others think of it... that James Bond, Agent 007, is a transferable identity given by the agency to elite agents. Whatever name they were before, it is their name for the duration. When they "retire" or feel justified in transferring (perhaps their face is too well known), they return to their protected previous identity, and immediately, or after a suitable interval, the name and number is assigned to another qualifying elite agent. Thus, James Bond can remain relatively young, compared to the progression of years (as the genre of movies shows). In addition, it is conceivable that a previous holder of the designation could be reactivated to it in order to accomplish a necessary goal - as in actor Sean Connery's brief return to service with the same apparent name as another active agent. GBC (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That theory's completely bogus. See James Bond (character) under alternate theories.  It lists why this is impossible.  Emperor001 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Tiny Beretta
"In the novels preceding Dr. No, Bond uses a 0.25mm Beretta automatic pistol carried in a light-weight chamois leather holster, however, in From Russia with Love, in the draw, the gun snags in Bond's jacket, and, because of this incident, M and Major Boothroyd order Bond re-equipped with a Walther PPK and a Berns-martin triple-draw holster made of stiff saddle leather. "

Considering that the smallest bullet ever invented was 2mm, I find this difficult to believe. 0.25mm would be so small as to be completely ineffective. Is this what's actually stated in the novels? Agharo (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't .25mm, it was .25 caliber. There's a difference between caliber and mm measurement of bullets.  Emperor001 (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Difference
What's the difference between this article and James Bond 007? Jimblack (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Leiter
Felix Leiter is alive at the end of License to Kill, so how can Bond avenge Leiter's and Dellas's deaths? Legostarwarsfreak (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Small additions and general criticism of article
Firstly, I have to agree with the comments above regarding the divergence of the literary and film character. It makes the article confusing and inaccurate to blend the two together. At the risk of engaging in "fan wankery" myself, I am going to make two small edits for now:

Since the article goes into detail about his use of intoxicants, I'm going to add a line about his drug use, which occurs in several of the novels. For instance, in Moonraker he consumes the amphetamine Benzedrine (mixed with Champagne) to give him extra confidence in his bridge game against Drax, and in On Her Majesty's Secret Service he recreationally consumes the barbituate seconal in order to induce a "cosy self-anaesthesia."

Also, I'm going to add a line about his taste/habits in food. Davidkleinfeld (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, but if possible in the paragraph, "Although Fleming states in the novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service that "James Bond was not a gourmet," he clearly appreciates food and has a sophisticated (if perhaps idiosyncratic) palate....". Could you add a few inline citations like page number etc., just so the Verifiability of that section is not brought into question. El Greco(talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal?
Should this not be merged with James Bond? It only seems rational. TheFamousPeter (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is about the character, while James Bond is about all that encompasses James Bond's influence. El Greco(talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excepting Fettes Bond's education mirrors Fleming's
The article then goes on to speak of Bond's Oxbridge education. Fleming, to the best of my knowing, never attended Cambridge or Oxford meaning that this is another deviation from Fleming's education.--Zoso Jade (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

format or genre?
The page doesn't meantiones the specific format Bond is built upon. This mixture of fantasy-, politicthriller and love-storys is a format itself. A so called Bond! Technical perfection in a nearly science -fiction way is added. So there are main characteristics and real political bondages. A cold war lasting 49 years is something amusing in the boarders of eastern and western world. This agent or commander acts on prejudices and fat strategies.For example, do you want to be invited in an uran cellar without any security clothes on? Do you? Touristic and sexy shapes sell more. How two enjoy such missunderstandings is real acting in our wealth. [ A world is not enough] Soldiers, agents, commanders and an enemy who disguises or not, are well known male fancies.The plots aren't validid. Let him go in his cellar!--Hum-ri (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Books/films
I first posted this on the Bond WikiProject talk page, but this may get more exposure here: This is a rough rearranging of the James Bond (character) page which aims to separate the book and film character more. If one looks at The Lord of the Rings character articles, their style (books first), if not format, is what I'm trying to emulate. It could use polishing, since I'm not that familiar with the books at least. Put any comments here, please. Uthanc (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

pointless paragraph
In the description and personal life section there is a paragraph near the end about woman that Craig's Bond has slept with and that they have died and that their first names are all odd. But since only makes out with Solange in the movie and three woman would hardly qualify for a significant relationship. Plus nearly all bond girls have uncommon names i.e. Pussy Jinx and this is only a matter of opinion. So I'm going to remove it.149.159.68.187 (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointless paragraph
In the description and personal life section there is a paragraph near the end about woman that Craig's Bond has slept with and that they have died and that their first names are all odd. But since only makes out with Solange in the movie and three woman would hardly qualify for a significant relationship. Plus nearly all bond girls have uncommon names i.e. Pussy Jinx and this is only a matter of opinion. It should be removed.
 * ✅ NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bond's age and his drug use
First, his age: Bond worked for SIS/MI6 before WWII. In Moonraker, M reminds Bond that he is the best card player in the Service, due to some casino jobs he performed before the war. Bond then reminisces about his training by Steffi Esposito, who was modeled after John Scarne. WWII started in September 1939,so Bond had to be born before 1921. The obit published by M in On Her Majesty's Secret Service was falsified for security reasons.

Second, his drug use: Bond took two Tuinals to help him sleep in the short story The Living Daylights.

In general, I agree that the original novels and short stories are more authoritative than the cinemas or later tales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchuven (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian/Asian James Bond
Is it true that serious consideration has been given to choosing an Indian/Asian (British English) actor to portray Bond?--71.111.194.50 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Year in which the Novels are based on
Does anyone know what the date is (fictionally) in Ian Flemings James Bond series? Its after WW2, but what date precisely? I need to know preciley or at least a rough estimate as to what Date it was in Ian Flemings last chronological time line of James Bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unbeholden (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no way to know this because, like many one-offs that turn into a series, Fleming didn't set out or manage to create a biographically consistent Bond.


 * In Casino Royale he was driving a Bentley in 1933, was an expert gambler by 1939, killed a Japanese agent in New York before December 1941 and killed a Norwegian thereafter - presumably during WW2 - to gain a 00 number. By Goldfinger, he's been in the Navy and joined in 1941 aged 17, which is irreconcilable to the dates and events of the first book.


 * Later books mention his having been to university, which is also difficult to reconcile to what has come before.


 * Neither is it possible for all the stories to have occurred during one or two action-packed years, because in Moonraker (in which the enemy is a vengeful Nazi), Bond reflects that assignments come up one to three times a year.


 * All one can say, I think, is that he's in his early 40s throughout the series, even though it was written over twelve years. Fleming also altered the backstory after the films went into production, making one of Bond's parents Scottish apparently so as to explain Sean Connery. Tirailleur (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

based on a real spy
Could the character of James Bond be based off of a real-life spy that has yet to be named. A spy during the Cold War or either of the world wars, perhaps?
 * Damn, you've learned the secret. Now, you must be mindwiped. There are three lights. FNORD. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Lee Tamahori
Just so we don't end up with an edit war over the Lee Tamahori interview, the citation does exist and it can be found here. The germane section is as below.

Can you guys thrash out an agreement here before you do any more page edits on this? Thanks - Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for initiating this discussion, Schrodinger's Cat; I meant to do so after my revert, but was distracted by a telephone call. I agree that the citation you thoughtfully added does indeed point to a source where a single director of a Bond film seems to think that 007 is a code name. Odd, idiosyncratic and not at all the majority opinion, but citable.
 * That brings up the larger concern here: why are we presenting a fringe theory as the predominant one? Different actors portray the same person, and the characters (and stories) alter to reflect the social mores of the times. Bond isn't as much of a womanizer, drinker and chain smoker. Sure, some nuttier could claim that 007 is just a code number for a succession of agents, but I would challenge anyone to present citable references that suggest that Fleming (or Gardner) ever presented that theory as even possible. They wrote their books for the same person - James Bond. Not a succession of people who are simply called Bond. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, I would agree its odd that a character created by a writer should be represented as the writer intended. The only caveat is that if there is sufficient (and notable) commentary then it has a place. I seem to recall that (in connection with the films) there has been much commentary on the idea that Bond is more then one person. For example in the first Casino Royal film it’s in fact a major part of the plot. Perhaps a seperate section is needed for film and novel charactisations.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a fringe theory, and initiating the subsection with it offers undue weight to the theory. Even Tamahori suggests it as such; the idea was eventually nixed before the final script was written, noting that noting that "some caution and some wisdom prevailed on that one".
 * Towards that end, I've edited the section in question to offer proper weight to the theory. Let me know if there remain any concerns. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldfinger
Having seen what a few helpful souls can do with regards to getting GA status for Dr. No, I'm trying to spark some interest in doing the same for the next non-GA film, Goldfinger. Is anyone able to help with this? Many thanks for anything you can do - pointing out problem links, dodgy sources, where citations are needed, adding in extra info or any form of help you can give: it's all most welcome! I want to see Goldfinger back at GA status in less than a month and as we managed it with Dr. No, so we can do it with this one too! Thanks for all your help! - Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Daughter?
What evidence is there that Bond and Tracy (aka Teresa) ever had a daughter named Camille, as the box suggests? In OHMSS it is revealed that Tracy had a daughter by her former husband before meeting Bond, but the girl died of meningitis. In both the book and film, she marries Bond and then is assassinated after their wedding. Not exactly enough time to have a kid. Any reason why I shouldn't delete this?Saturnalia9 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)saturnalia9
 * Is it in the books by Fleming? If so, it should remain in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not in any Fleming book, so take it out and let someone else argue the point with sources, if they want. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it is your contention that it is in neither book nor film. Is that correct? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware yes that's correct (although I'm open to correction)! I've done a text search on the books (great to have a Kindle) and the name Camille doesn't come up at all.  It's been a month or so since I saw the film, but they didn't havea child together (they were killed a few hours after the wedding ceremony). - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember that from the film, but hadn't read the book. I guess keep it out for now, and if some bight sould is able to source it, we talk about putting it back in. Thanks for the talking, SchroCat. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hoagy Carmichael Photo
Can I pretty please change it back to the studio head shot (Hoagy_carmichael.jpg), rather than the early photo of young Hoagy, which was probably not what Fleming had in mind when he compared Bond to him? I tried, but somebody changed it back because they said it what vandalism :( Saturnalia9 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)saturnalia9
 * What are the dates of the two photos were originally taken? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the answer, I've self-reverted; your edit appeared to be vandalism, but that was only because I had not checked it more carefully. My most sincere apologies, Saturnalia9. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonkers
This article is nuts. The bio swings around madly between stories by different writers. There's no continuity, it doesn't make any bloody sense. There are loads of random 'facts' that come from a variety of sources, sometime half from one and half from another, and are just jumbled in together as if they're all one.

What will any one learn from this? If someone came here to get information about the Fleming character, it would be too hard to pick out the bits that were Fleming and the bits that weren't. Same goes for the film character. Same goes for Young Bond and all the post-Fleming additional writing. The articles really need to be separated in to 'Fleming's literary Bond', 'Film Bond', 'other stuff', otherwise the article is pretty much useless for any encyclopaedic purposes and is just a fanzine. BearAllen (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay BearAllen, apart from splitting this article into several smaller ones (which would likely not survive as such), how would you craft this article to clean it up. I am open to restructuring. Recall that Bond is historically a jumble, as his personal biography tends to morph in each new era a Bond film is made in, or treatments by different authors. I think that what some editors were doing was to merge all of that data together in a chronological dateline - perhaps not the right approach, but an understandable one. Maybe different sections; first the literary Bond (with subsections for Fleming's and then Gardner's Bond), then one for the film Bond, and finally one for other versions of Bond? This also follows a chronological format, but the chronology of character usage, and not the in-universe life of a fictional character. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest keeping certain boundaries. Certain biographical points made in the article begin with something from Fleming but by the end of the sentence are sourced from, say, Higson. It's confusing, a bit deceptive, and doesn't really help anyone.
 * I would largely go along the lines you just suggested. If it's to be one big article for the character of Bond, start with the Fleming literary character and keep the section strictly to Fleming - the origin, similarities to Fleming, bio, description, and career as described by Fleming, reception of the books and the impact the character had, etc, all the normal stuff you'd expect, but keep it strictly within the boundaries of the original character.
 * Personally, I would then go on to the film character of Bond - it makes most sense in terms of chronology, progression of the character, and significance. Then, as a follow up, I would move on to the additional works which use Bond as a character - Higson, Gardner, Amiss, Foulks, and so on, and then the various computer games, cartoon series, etc.
 * This would be consistent with other major literary characters, such as Sherlock Holmes. The work of the original writer needs to be disambiguated from what followed. Thought? BearAllen (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We are on the same wavelength here, BearAllen. Why not work the article out in accordance with that idea? I'll join in, time permitting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. It looks like a big project and, as I doubt any one person has all the source material to hand and has read/watched absolutely all of it, will naturally require a lot of input from a lot of editors. I'll start a new section on this page where we can propose a re-write. Good place to start would seem to be getting a cleaner and more conventional lede. Regards. BearAllen (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed re-write - Outline
As discussed above (and flicking through the talk page(s) it seems this has been proposed several times before) it looks as if this page needs a re-write/overhaul. I suggest the following outline:

Conventional lede - a brief overview, leaving out some of the factoids which should really be in the body

Literary Bond - A bio of the literary character of Bond, in line with the format of other literary bios, and sticking strictly to the Fleming canon.

Film Bond - a bio of the film character, how he differed from the literary character, how he changed with each new actor/era

Other works with Bond - Young Bond, novelizations, etc

Other stuff - TBC

I'll try to write a new lede in the next few days. Suggestions for material welcome. BearAllen (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-write
As the previous proposer of a re-write didn't make a start on this article, I will be making a start on this in the next week or so. It'll need a fairly hefty re-write in places as many of the sections deal with the background of (for example) a particular actor and not the character of Bond whilst under his care, which is the aim of the article. The proposed new structure I'll initially be working towards is as follows, but I'd be more than glad to hear of anyone's suggestions...!

Lead

1	Literary Bond
 * 1.1	Fleming's concept of Bond
 * 1.2	Continuation Bond works
 * 1.2.1	Gardner
 * 1.2.2	Benson
 * 1.2.3	Others (Amis & Wood)
 * 1.3	Young Bond

2	Film Bond
 * 2.1	Actors
 * (Intro section also covering Nelson & Niven)
 * 2.1.1 Sean Connery's Bond
 * 2.1.2 George Lazenby's Bond
 * 2.1.3 Roger Moore's Bond
 * 2.1.4 Timothy Dalton's Bond
 * 2.1.5 Pierce Brosnan's Bond
 * 2.1.6 Daniel Craig's Bond

3	Anything else that springs to mind

Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Young Bond stuff should be in a section about 'Bond in Other Media' - its the latest of incarnations, and seems to have little bearing in either the books or films. As well, Bond is a cultural icon, and could help populate the aforementioned section. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's a section about the literary Bond, why wouldn't a series of books about a younger version be a sub-set of that? The material will be in a separate section to the main Fleming Bond, which will be separate from the continuation Bonds. A book series wouldn't really sit that well in an "other media" section... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Does a profile of Bond/his personality warrant a separate section or it should enter "Concept"? (also, maybe Reception can enter "Anything else that springs to mind") igordebraga ≠ 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to write this, but have been away with work. Quite happy for someone else to, though. I'll contribute if I get a chance. I'd suggest it be:

Fleming's Bond

Eon Film Bond

(more briefly) Continuation works

It's appropriate that due weight is given in accordance with prominence and merit. In reality, the character of Bond is about the Fleming character and the films. The continuation work is really 'other stuff' and doesn't sit too well alongside Fleming. Just a thought, though. I'll look in again when I get a chance. Good luck! BearAllen (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely that due weight is given to the Fleming work - it is the source of all that follows, after all. But it is more logical to have a Literary section that deals with all the written works together. If you consider that they are one step removed from the original works then they are as valid as the film Bonds, which are also pale imitations of the Fleming books. The fact that Fleming is the first section (which will be extensive) and the continuation works will be much briefer should, I hope, allay any fears. I'm not being hard-line over this as I can be persuaded and I find it better to thrash out a pathway based on pushing people's reasoning before we agree on something together. Either way I'll start brushing up the Fleming section as I don't think anyone will argue that it needs to be the top section! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree that Fleming is the source for the character. That said, the movies are what kept the character alive, inspiring several other authors to take up the baton after Fleming's death. I guess the same cold be true for the Young Bond series, but they seem - and forgive my likely ageism in saying this - young adult fluff stuff, and not the same sort of material as the "serious" novelizations. It just doesn;t seem to be on par with the rest of the adult works. I think it would be jarring to include the Young Bond stuff with the serious literary treatments, but maybe that's just me.
 * I think the idea of Concept works much better than 'personality'; its less in-universe, imo. The problem with this is that the Bond that Fleming envisioned would likely be very different than Moore's, Dalton's or Craig's interpretation. Indeed, Fleming even created a half-Scots nationality for Bond after seeing Connery in the role. The idea of who each writer thought Bond was will inevitably conflict with who the actors portraying him believed he was. After sanding off the rough edges, we'd be left with a chain-smoking womanizer with fancy tastes. Bond seems to be much more than that. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the order of 'Fleming/Eon Films/Continuation work' is also supported by chronology. The character evolves, if that's the appropriate word, from Fleming in to the films. Fleming was also involved with Dr No. There's a consensual aspect to what they did with his character. The continuation works are influenced by the films as much as the books (possibly more). It seems the right order to me. In terms of perception of the character, too, the films have been seen by billions of people, some of the continuation works could have their readership measured in the tens of thousands. BearAllen (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from, but the chronology of "Literary Bond" followed by "Film Bond" also works in the same way and has the added advantage of logic in the approach too! If we go down the strict chronology route, should we have "Fleming from Casino Royale to On Her Majesty's Secret Service", then the film Dr. No, then back to Fleming, then on to... There has to be a trade off between that and something that flow a little more sensibly and going the conceptual routes of Literary and Film fulfils that need.
 * It will also not just be "Eon Films", but all manner of portrayals, so Niven and Nelson also have to have a decent mention in there too. Understandably there will be more on the Eon Bonds as they have been involved in more of the portrayals than the others, but they also have their part in the article too. This article needs to be about the James Bond character and if he appears on TV or in an independently produced film then it needs covering.
 * I'd also include Young Bond in there too. I understand your concerns on it being "fluff", but these sit alongside the continuation Bonds as being a Glidrose/IF Publications agreed and licenced Bond "product", for want of a better word.  If we start deciding we don't want them in because we have issues with them, then we fall into a POV problem. It does not have to be a massive section: a brief coverage should be suitable for this article. I've just finished re-writing the James Bond page and you can see how brief I've made the Young Bond section there. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. That doesn't follow. Some of the later 'novels' are really based on the films. To put them before the film character doesn't really make sense. They are a bi-product of the films, not the Fleming novels. To group all the books together just because they're books is to tell the story by going from A straight to F and then back to B. Likewise, the chronology is not the release date of individual books or films, because that isn't what the article's about; it's about the creation/inception/evolution of the character. Fleming's Bond was distinct. Eon used it as a starting point and moved it on. Others have then moved it in their own directions. I'd make the suggestion again, for anyone who ends up contributing, that unless there are obvious distinctions/firewalls between the character as written by different people the article really makes no sense. BearAllen (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd agree except for the fact that the fact that the continuation novels do not always follow from the screen Bond: a number follow from Fleming's Bond, notably the Amis version, a fair amount of Gardner's works and all the Young Bonds. In essence what you are suggesting is to look at Fleming's Bond, then twenty four films (twenty five if you include Skyfall) and one television appearance (with eight different Bonds) that went from 1954 to 2008 (or 2012) before returning to the 1968 book Colonel Sun, which is based almost entirely on Fleming's Bond, not the Eon one! Yes, the novelizations of film versions would be out of sync, but as I said above, there really is no perfect way to do this without going:


 * 1 Fleming's Bond, from Casino Royale to On Her Majesty's Secret Service


 * 2 Dr. No, the film


 * 3 Fleming's You Only Live Twice and the effects of the Dr. No film


 * 4 From Russia with Love, the film


 * 5 Fleming's The Man with the Golden Gun and the effects of the first two films


 * 6 ....You get where I'm going with this?


 * In the absence of anything perfect we have to try and make order from the chaos of development and covering the ground through Literary and Film sections seems the best way to approach that. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just reading through the very intelligent commentary here and it occurred to me - why don't we arrange by decade? I mean, we would of course be starting out with the Fleming and progress by author and film in chronological order. The benefit of this is that we can map the character's "evolution" with cited commentary from each of the actors portraying the character and subsequent written treatments. So long as we focus on how real people wrote/portrayed Bond, we'd avoid any in-universe issues.
 * This would seem a nice middle ground and has the added benefit of - once we are all done with it - having the only real sections undergoing ongoing editing would eventually be the more current decades, and not the whole history. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the better I think it might be to merge the film section of this article into the James Bond in film. The problem here is that the film Bonds are really just interpretations, they aren't an actually developed character as in the novelised character (even the film novelisations are written to follow from the previous novels, so in terms of the evolution of the character have less to do with the film they are novelising then the literary canon):  Roger Moore had a different take on the character to Connery, and Dalton to Moore etc. These sections aren't really discussing the evolution of a seemless fictional entity, they mostly focus on the real-life background to the casting and the approach to the character each actor adopted.  This stuff really would be better in the James Bond in film article, and you could argue that if it is not there then that article is lacking some relevant detail. This article should then focus on the evolution of the literary character in two parts: Fleming, and then the continuation novels. Young Bond should be briefly covered at the end and be distinct from the established literary character. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with that approach. The one thing we have all agreed upon up to now is the primacy of the Fleming material over all others.


 * Lead


 * 1	Fleming's concept of Bond
 * 1.1	Inspiration for the character
 * 1.2	Origins of the name
 * 1.3	Looks
 * 1.4	Background
 * 1.5	Tastes and style
 * 1.6	Attitudes
 * 1.7	Abilities
 * 1.8	Personal life
 * 1.9	Anything else to cover here?


 * 2	Continuation Bond works
 * 2.1	Gardner
 * 2.2	Benson
 * 2.3	Others (Amis, Faulks, Deaver & Wood)


 * 3	Young Bond


 * 4	Anything else that springs to mind
 * Reception, maybe?
 * 5	Adaptations
 * A brief section (c. 250–300 words) regarding the interpretations from the film / radio / comic strip Bond.


 * Does this outline find more favour than the previous one? -- SchroCat ( ^ •  @ ) 14:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Starting the re-write...

 * On the basis that all the people involved in the debate so far have been actively editing since I posted the second outline and that none have come back with an argument against the second structure, based solely on the literary Bond, I'm going to make a start by removing all the cinematic information. A full copy of the page is available here and the information that has been removed will make its way into the James Bond in film article once this one has been finished off.
 * Please don't just revert the alterations I'm about to make: please raise any issues here and we'll come to a consensus about future progress. Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's coming along great; it reads like a proper biography now rather than just a mish mash of character tropes. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you like it so far - still got a fair way to go, but at least structurally and in terms of citations etc, we're heading along the right lines! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bands on cigarettes
Bond smokes Morland specials with three gold bands, as did Fleming. At the moment the article says this is a reference to their rank of Commander. Both Fleming and Bond were Commanders in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, not the Royal Navy, and the RNVR (known as the "Wavy Navy") had a different rank insignia; see an example here. I suppose it's possible Fleming could have had three wavy rings on his cigarettes, but it sounds unlikely to me. A quick internet search turns up a thread on this subject from 2005 at commanderbond.net, in which a poster quotes from an extensive entry on Morland & Co. in a 1998 book about Goldfinger by Adrian Turner. This says all Morland cigarettes had three gold bands. Could someone please check Chancellor's book to see exactly what he says on this? Either way the Royal Navy rank insignia image needs to go. Opera hat (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A salutory lesson in not believing what appears on Commanderbond.net then. I wrote the band information three days ago when I read it in Chancellor, McIntrye and Lycett. The three very good sources would seem to counter whatever a mis-informed fansite has to offer, I feel. I should add that although Fleming's sleeve rings would have been wavy, Bond's would not: his would have been straight. Either way, I've removed the image as it will only cause confusion going forward. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bond (like all officers commissioned in wartime) was in the RNVR, not the Royal Navy (see for example You Only Live Twice, Ch. 21) so would have had wavy rings as well.
 * Of course I wasn't suggesting a newsboard post on a fansite could be considered a reliable source, just that it was quoting from what might be one. There's certainly nothing in the novels themselves that links the bands on the cigarettes to Bond's naval rank. I assume the relevant passages in C, McI and L aren't very long - could you quote them here for me please? Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Bond had straight sleeve rings: by order of the King, the RNVR changed from wavy to straight rings in 1952, which is when the books were set. You're right that there's nothing in the novels, but as it appears in the three other major sources it's more than acceptable. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, I didn't know that about the 1952 change, thanks. But (not wanting to give up altogether) by the time of the novels Bond is no longer a serving naval officer but a civil servant in the Ministry of Defence.
 * However... whatever Bond's rank insignia might have been isn't really relevant to the point at issue though: Fleming described Bond's cigarettes as having three gold bands because Fleming's own cigarettes had three gold bands. Did Fleming's cigarettes have three gold bands because Fleming was a Commander in the RNVR during the war, or because that's how Morlands made all their "specials"? What do the three sources say, exactly? Opera hat (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ringing 007 :)
What will happen,when I ring 007 (I want real answers,not fake ones (ex. You will ring James Bond)) ? Wikidexel2 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Any Connection?
This article states: "Fleming went on to write a total of twelve Bond novels and two short story collections; he died on the morning of 12 August 1964." Unless there is a connection that isn't obvious, not sure these two sentences should be hooked together. Indeed, the latter sentence doesn't appear to belong in this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth of James Bond
The article states that Ian Fleming did not provide Bond's date of birth and adds some speculation from Pearson's fictional biography and Griswold's study. However the dates are in direct contradiction with Fleming's writing - as he in fact wrote about Bond's date of birth.

"Mr. Tanaka had been born in the year of Tiger, whereas Bond, as Tiger had taken much pleasure in telling him, had been born in the year of the Rat" - You only live twice, Chapter 6

and

"By the time he left, at early age of seventeen,(...). By now it was 1941." You only live twice, Chapter 21.

So Bond was born in 1924, which really was Year of the Rat.

This is my first attempt to add something to Wikipedia so I don't know what has to be done and how, so please if someone reads this, to check it and perhaps add it to the article.

95.102.57.136 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * no one gonna comment on this? I think it's quite important information and it corrects the info in the article. If I didn't get something right, at least tell me so I'll know in the future

78.98.93.198 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry no-one has got back to you on this. You need to find a reliable, independent secondary source which covers this. What you are doing is pulling together a few pieces from the books and mashing them together: this classifies as Original Research and is liable to be removed. Although part of what you say is in the book (which counts as a primary source), the connection of Bond to the actual year needs a secondary source to confirm it. There is a lot of info about when a primary and secondary source can be used at WP:SOURCES. Read through that bit and see if you can find any information from a reliable source and there is no reason why it can't go in. I hope this helps. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pearson's authoriZed biography
The first edition of this work—in the UK—is James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. Please see the British Library catalogue, as well as the book's own article, showing the first UK edition cover in the infobox. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

British-published book uses British spelling conventions
The book, James Bond: The Unauthorised Biography (1) was published in New Zealand by a British author about a fictional British character. As the book title explicitly uses British spelling conventions, we have little choice in the matter - It's even listed in the biography as such. It doesn't make any difference if a subsequent edition was published for us Yanks swapping 's' for 'z'; that much is clearly demonstrated in all sorts of books published the same way (ie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, etc.); we use the initial titling. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See the section above. I care not about the NZ edition, or whatever Amazon may have on offer: I go by the first edition in the UK (which is the first edition anywhere), which uses a Z. The section above which I wrote for you 5 minutes ago has a link to the British Library catalogue, which lists the UK edition of the book as having a Z in the title. You'll also see a link to the book's article, which has an image of the UK first edition, again showing a Z in the title. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Before you revert again, you are already in breach of 3RR. Don't make it 4RR or MoreRR... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Before things get incredibly stupid, I am going to point out that you are already at 4RR, Schro. I'll suggest that you revert immediately, and use the talk page for which it was designed. I won't wait long before reporting it, so consider the clock to be running.
 * Secondly (and far more importantly), check the link provided far more carefully than you have; the publisher, author, and subject material all fall under British spelling conventions. In point fo fact, the first edition did not use authorised with a 'z'. You should, however, feel compelled to produce evidence to support your conclusion. I have done so in support of my edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I've noticed that the book's article that you graciously linked to indicates that you have changed the title of teh book within the past half-hour. I don't really consider your argument there to be all that valid, as you've sought to alter the evidence of the argument. You might want to consult with an administrator, because it would appear you are moving into some pretty gray areas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly I am not at 4RR (my first edit to correct the title isn't a revert: it's an edit)
 * Secondly, I will not self-revert as the information I have put in is correct and I think you are missing the point here.
 * Thirdly, I have already provided a more than adequate citation regarding this. I suggest you read the section above this one, titled "Pearson's authoriZed biography", which I wrote at 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC), some six minutes before you opened the "British-published book uses British spelling conventions".
 * Let me break this down a little more clearly:


 * The book was first published in the UK in 1973.
 * The UK edition is titled James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. With a Z. yes, it's a UK book, but the first UK edition uses the word "authorized" in the title.
 * See the link to the British Library that I included in the above section (still called "Pearson's authoriZed biography") which shows the first edition title.
 * Then see the book's own article with the UK edition front cover image in the infobox, which shows the Z in the title.

- SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're arranging deck chairs here, Schro. You altered the book article in support of your argument here. Therefore, you are going to lose any argument wherein you use that as a supporting document.
 * Secondly. I think you need to check the definition of WP:3RR again; I've thoughtfully provided the link for you; you are indeed in violation. If you state that you will not self-revert again, i will forego the waiting period and simply report you now. You now have an hour and a half.
 * My previous pointing out of Wikipedia's crystal clear British spelling conventions still trump your arguments. The first edition uses 'AuthoriSed' (2). Period. If you feel an RfC is necessary, go ahead and file. I am fairly certain of my viewpoint here; prove me wrong via a consensus of opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you are misunderstanding by accident or design here, so I'll try and spell it out even more slowly for you;
 * For details of the first edition, see this link right here. I think the British Library catalogue is a far better source than that of a fansite. I am fully aware of the british spelling conventions and spend much of my time reverting US edits on British articles. Regardless of that, the first edition of this book was published as James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noticed your accusation, above ("you have changed the title of teh book within the past half-hour") Firstly, it's etiquette not to edit further up the conversation as things get missed, so please try and bear that in mind. Secondly, no, I haven't and I'd appreciate you withdraw your comment. Just to make it clear, the only edit I have done on the article today is this one, which is wikilinking two terms. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you appear to have made the spelling change to the article for the book initially via several edits and a page move/renaming, and then came to this article less than a day later to enforce that change, via edit-warring. Since the matter of your 4RR violation is being handled elsewhere, we'll put a pin in that for now. Your argument citing that the British Library as a premier source for your change is substantively false, SchroCat. following the link you provided, we see that your search term encompassed only your preferred spelling ('authorized'). When a more appropriate search is conducted, it illustrates - quite clearly - that the British spelling came first:
 * 3	Book
 * James Bond : the authorized biography of 007 : a fictional biography / by John Pearson
 * John Pearson 1930-
 * London : Pan Books, 1975.
 * There are 2 versions of this item


 * 4
 * Book
 * James Bond : the authorised biography of 007 : a fictional biography / by John Pearson
 * John Pearson 1930-
 * London : Grafton, 1986, c1973.

Note that the Americanized edition was published two years after the version using British spelling conventions. Not sure how you missed that, but you did. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it do you? The first edition was published in 1973 by Sidgwick and Jackson. Try searching for spelling of that version, rather than any subsequent re-prints by other publishers. I'd hardly call putting in the spelling you want "appropriate" either: try looking at all the editions and see the slightly bigger picture. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I am aware of the matter, SchroCat. Simply because a number of subsequent versions use "authorized" doesn't negate that the first version uses the British spelling convention: "authorised". The first version was published in 1973 (using the Brit spelling). Subsequent versions alternatively use both 's' and 'z'. Does that mean that we mention both in the article for the book? Absolutely. What we do not do is completely alter the article to reflect a preferred version, which is what you did. Furthermore, you came here are edit-warred that preferred version into the article.
 * Lastly, your latest contention that Sidgwick and Jackson were the real initial publishers and not as noted above is in itself provably inaccurate. According to their own Wikipedia article, Sidgwick & Jackson are an imprint of Pan MacMillan (note the publishing date of 1975 as referenced above from the British Library itself). The initial publication of the book appears to have been Grafton.
 * Perhaps I'm just misreading it all. Explain it to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are misreading it and I've tried to explain this to you a number of times.
 * The first publishers of the book was Sidgwick and Jackson. See see this link right here for details of the first edition.
 * The link above refers to the 1973 first edition. It's the first edition anywhere in the world and it's in the UK. And it used the title James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. See also the Worldcat reference
 * Subsequent publishers (ie. not the first edition publishers) changed the title of the book to James Bond: the authorised biography of 007.
 * Grafton were not the publishers of the first edition: they were publishers of the paperback edition. Check out your BL search again and when you see the Grafton reference, click on the "details" tab - it shows it's the paperback version.
 * Can you now see that actually Sidgwick and Jackson—the first UK edition—used the spelling "authorized in the title. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not sure I am misreading this, SchroCat. Are you misunderstanding my reasoning here? I am stating - fairly clearly, I think - that the search result sources you are providing are non-starters: they are the results that you plug in (be it searching for 'authorized' or an isbn for a book that uses authorized in the title). For example, you point out that WorldCat supports your claim of non-Brit spelling being the first used. A subsequent search, using the proper search term, seems to clearly indicate that the title uses the Brit spelling conventions. I am stating that you appear to be stacking the search 'deck' to support your own choice of title spelling. As for paperbacks versus hardcovers, I think it was fairly common practice back then to publish paperbacks initially on subjects that might not sell all that well. A decision to publish hardcover - a sizable investment by the publishing house - could be considered if the paperback performed well in sales. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came across this as well: IanFleming.com list the book as Authorised, as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you are also twisting your search results the same way! Try searching for "john pearson james bond biography". You'll see the first edition is the Sidgwick and Jackson one. No others. not Grafton, not Granada, not Pan, but Sidgwick and Jackson. 1973. You'll see the results soon enough - and not just a 1985 book carrying the 1973 copyright. And yes, of course you found the Ian Fleming Publications reference: modern versions carry the "authorised" title, but again you're missing the point, or are you bening deliberately disingenuous? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, is it your contention that the souce I noted that uses British naming conventions in 1973 was only copyrighted as such? I am not seeing that. Perhaps you could produce a source that explicitly states that the 'authorized' titling was used first. Find that, and we're done. this roundabout Sherlocking isn't going to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Once more round the roundabout we go. My contention is that the 1973 first edition is by Sidgwick and Jackson: they used the title James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. As the first edition, that is the correct title, no matter how many Amazon, fanpage or 1980s/90s/00s publications you try and show me. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry, but I've used the same sources you have, to point out that you are cherry-picking your preferred source. Now, I've asked for a definitive source that states without equivocation that the non-Brit spelling was published first. Do you have it, or are you going to file an RfC? Bc - quite plainly - I am not satisfied with your explanation. And you can dispense with the ad hominem attacks, SchroCat. That isn't going to get you anywhere close to convincing me, I can assure you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure whether you are a troll or a hound. If you want to make a comment on my talk page then do so, don't try and hide it in the summary—at least I presume that is what you are calling an attack. I've already suggested that you stop cherry picking your search terms and search the records for "john pearson james bond biography" and see what results you come up with. You'll see the 1973 Sidgwick and Jackson edition is the first edition. Do you have something that unequivocally says otherwise? Shall I go to the British Library and look at the various editions and let you know what I find? or will you do that? Or do you just want to keep spinning this rather pointless argument out even further? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Sure, go on down to the British Library and confirm your hypothesis. Just because I think you have made some mistakes and handled being told so piss-poorly doesn't make me a troll, hound or your mommy. Focus on the issue, and simply provide a source that states without equivocation that the book's first edition did indeed use the non-British conventional spelling. I will ask again: can you provide that, or do you need to initiate an RfC to seek a consensus. At this time, you do not have a consensus for its inclusion, as there are competing sources that cancel each other out. Either file the RfC about the matter so others can weigh in, or simply provide the source that stipulates what you think the info does. I'm not seeing a third choice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This really is getting quite tiresome—and please mind your language: there is no need for profanity in your comments. I have provided a reference to the first edition. You have not. Do you have a source that shows the first edition? If so, show me. If you can't, then go troll somewhere else. Despite that fact that I know you will not be able to show me any other first edition apart from the one I have already identified, I will visit the British Library next week and confirm what I know to be the fact of the matter. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * if the British Library isn't enough for you, how about two independent books sellers, both UK based and both offering the 1973 first edition from Sidgwick and Jackson. Do you have any, any sources which would refute this at all? |Ref 1 and |Ref 2 - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will wait for a week for you to present your incontrovertible information citing where someone has explicitly named your preferred choice as the first edition - since you are stating that you can get exactly that.
 * And just so we're clear, getting up in arms about my usage of piss-poor would likely carry more weight were you not - in the same post - calling me a troll. Act like an asshat, and you will be dispensed with as one. So, until next week, then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You really are a rather rude and objectionable editor, aren't you? I have now left a stack full of references and you have left none. Your behaviour, which consists of foul language and insults, as well as stalking and picking petty arguments over points about which I am sure you know the truth, suggest nothing but the actions of a troll. There is no use waiting a week. My evidence is already here. Where is yours, exactly? No-where: because you have none. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I reluctantly join this flame war but must do so all the same. SchroCat is correct. Jack Sebastian is wrong. SchroCat has already said everything that needs to be said in support of the facts. Some of Jack Sebastian's arguments and claims undermine his own position. I myself have handled the UK 1973 hardcover first edition. It uses the "Z" spelling. The first British paperback printing also uses the "Z" spelling. Google image search is our friend. The Grafton edition Jack Sebastian refers to is a 1985 reprinting. Going by Jack Sebastian's comments above, it is clear that he knows little about Bond or the publishing industry. Example 1 Example 2 His own edit history shows little work done in James Bond related articles. For that reason I do not understand why he wanders into a subject he knows little about. It does not matter if the British edition uses the wrong spelling. Ask yourself this: what would we do if a publisher deliberately misspells a word in the title? Correct the error or list the title as it appears on the book cover? This of course is a rhetorical question. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a little reminder about WP:Verifiability. Yes it's true that the British spelling is "unauthorised", but it can be verified that the first edition (correctly or incorrectly...doesn't matter) used the spelling "unauthorized". DonQuixote (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to simply ignore SchroCat's continued snipes and focus on the matter at hand. I am not interested in a flame war, either. AS some may recall, I asked for an RfC so as to build a consensus of opinion one way or the other. I was looking at the material that SchroCat was presenting, and it looked cherry-picked. Nothing irritates me more than that sort of behavior. Except perhaps for people reverting instead of talking. "Uncool that," indeed.
 * Btw,that's the advantage to not being immersed in Bond trivia, Fanthrillers - I am not married to any particular opinion on the material and can look at it objectively. Rather than condemning me for "wandering into a subject", you should be thanking your lucky stars that there are many of us that do just that. Otherwise, your favorite articles would likely remain in a state of polarized lockdown; two or more fan groups unwilling to see the other fan group's pov.
 * The point of the RfC is to bring in new views. If I am wrong, i'll admit it, but I have yet to see a source that hasn't been massaged via search engine by SchroCat. Just present one, and I'm good to go. Don't think that i'm hung up on Brit spelling conventions that I'm going to insist on changing a title to conform to it. That's just a dumb idea. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack, I've told you: do a search on the British library using the term "john pearson james bond biography". Looks for the ealiest published book. It's 1973. It's Sidgwick and Jackson. It's James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. Your own searches have included the term authorised. I suggest you leave the word out altogether and re-do the searches. There can be no accusation of skewing the results if you follow that suggestion. You want an RfC so much, start one. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for opinion. The facts suffice. I note that Jack Sebastian does not address many of my points. SchroCat's material is not cherry-picked; your "evidence" clearly is. SchroCat has given you many sources that have not been massaged by a search engine; where as you have massaged your own sources. Few things irritate me more than somebody who blunders into a subject pretending to be an expert where he or she clearly is not. Not being immersed in Bond "trivia" is not an advantage. You cannot look at this objectively or do the necessary research when you don't have all the facts at your own fingertips. I will not thank my lucky stars that there are many people like you who start unnecessary edit wars. "Polarized lockdown" is what you seem to be trying to achieve on this thread. Have you ever handled a copy of the first UK hardcover edition? I have. You apparently haven't. Once you've finished patting yourself on the back you may want to consider this source. If one photo of the first UK hardcover edition is not good enough for you, then here is another. I'll save you the trouble of clicking on the image. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, Fanthrillers, though I know it to be tragically incorrect. I could address that i've pointed out - quite clearly, I might add - that I do not pretend to be an expert about a fictional spy. It would appear, however, that I know our wiki polices and guidelines somewhat better than you. For instance, were you aware that you are being something of a dick, when I have offered you no offense, nor have ever interacted with you before (unless you edit as a certain IP address…hmm…)
 * Being uninvolved with the suspension of belief and clutter of trivia surrounding Bond affords me the opportunity to look at mattes solely from a policy and guidelines point of view. If you don't like it, find someplace else to edit; you are going to encounter a lot more people like me than like you.
 * And if you want answers to your questions, don't be an accusatory tool when asking them. You might get a response then. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop insulting other editors who disagree with you. SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello pot, meet kettle. Sorry, SchroCat; as yuou might have recognized yourself, disagreement is not license to act like an ass hat. You can disagree with civility and professionalism - both of which seem to have been abandoned by others simply because I had the temerity to voice opposition to an edit and the way you went about cementing it (page moves, edit warring, etc.). If a consensus of folk think it should remain in, I will not oppose. However, it would be a mistake to think I am going to let anyone take a cheap shot at my expense.
 * The smart move for yourself now is to simply find the consensus you seek, present it and be done with it. Turn it into a pissing contest, and this will end up elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you to please stop insulting editors: that also includes me. There is also no need for profanity and I have previously asked you to stop. No-one is taking a cheap shot at your expense: two editors are trying to show you a point of information. You are arguing with that but not providing anything that supports your view and weither of us are sure why that is. This is not about needing a consensus, this is about a simple fact which has been shown and not disproved. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also asked you to stop insulting me - and I would be happy to point out where you have done so; don't be so thick to think I am going to let anyone give that without getting it in return.
 * I disagree with your view, and I thought you went about asserting it in a pretty conniving way. Clearly, you feel you are in the right and you are as innocent as the driven snow. Great. Find others that feel that way, and (and I know I've already said this multiple times) I won't argue it. It is a consensus issue, so far as it is about which edition came first. Build a consensus and we're done here. Don't make it personal.
 * Do I need to point out that it is your version which has remained int he article during all this back and forth? All you had to do to have sidestepped this was to simply bring your posterior to article discussion the FIRST time you were reverted. So much of this could have been avoided if you hadn't been so arrogant.
 * Unless you say something which is going to prompt a response by me, I think we're done talking about this. Find more agreement for your viewpoint, and we're done. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone really explain something to me
What's the issue?

Throughout the article, we use British English - period. Now, when it comes to a book title, we use what version is being quoted in the article. For example, if the ref says it's page 67 of the 1973 edition with a title "Authorized", then so be it. It's so fricking minor here.

Or maybe I'm missing the artery-throb-inducing reason for the entire argument ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kind of the point, BWilkins. I've already said that if enough people say it should be in, let it remain. I'm having trouble trusting the sources being provided, but I've left the material in. One of the users is getting pissy because I don't see it their way, and I use words like 'pissy'. Crap, did it again. Anyhoo, I've noted before that it was LAME, but people just keep wanting to take a cheap shot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The title of the first UK edition, and therefore the book's official title, is the reason for the entire argument. I don't see why Jack Sebastian has so much trouble trusting the sources being provided when it includes multiple, clearly identified photos of the first UK edition. Fanthrillers (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and the overall importance of this single letter in the title of a book is somehow worth edit-warring, fighting, getting "pissy" on both sides, or any other of the myriad of more-heat-than-light stuff that has gone on by both sides? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a small point, but I've noticed a claim being made repeatedly which simply isn't true. Using 'ize' is not an American spelling. Until relatively recently, most British people, and probably all published material, would use 'ize' for words ending in the Greek suffix. The OED still has it as its preferred spelling, so does the OUP. 'ise' is a modern British idiomatic spelling, and doesn't really have any bearing on how we should treat British publications from the past. BearAllen (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See, Bear- I simply did not know that. That is an excellent argument.
 * People keep asking me here why I wasn't trusting the sources being provided, and it (the trust) essentially came down to the quality of said sources. In each case, it was a forced web search, or a library search for the book with the 'ize' ending, not an open-ended search that alowed for a differing (and perhaps correct) view. That's like doing a Google search 'why are bears so evil? instead of 'bears, behavior'; with the first result, you are going to get an answer that presupposes your desired conclusion, whereas the second brings a better, more neutral number of responses. Maybe it was a bit of bad faith on my part towards SchroCat - perhaps he did not intend to manipulate the search (and results) but that's sure how it came across to me, and I was having none of it. The more SchroCat kept pointing to them as incontrovertible proof, the less I less willing I was to assume good faith. It became not at all about the sources and about someone seeking to manipulate the Wikipedia with an agenda (what the agenda was, I had no idea, but a failure to see the scope of a plan doesn't mean one cannot see a part of a plan).
 * That was why I sought to widen the circle of people looking at the sources; so I wouldn't be the only one seeing what I thought I was seeing.
 * I have since seen proof of the original printing (good ol' university libraries - ya gotta love them), and it is indeed the 'ize' ending. So, I am admitting I was wrong, but I hope my explanation illustrates why I felt I had a reason to be concerned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Siblings?
Bond's You Only Live Twice obituary says he's an only child. Mascott's 003 1/2 book gives him a brother, Captain David Bond, an airline pilot. Whereas Pearson's book gives him an older brother named Henry. I'll defer to SchroCat on this. Fanthrillers (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be happier with keeping everything as close to Fleming's outline as possible. The relevant Mascott and Pearson articles both cover the additional siblings and I think it'd be best that is where they stay. We have cheated slightly in including Kissy Suzuki's son's name, although we know that she was pregnant at the end of YOLT, so it's not too far away from Fleming's intent. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * James Bond, while initiated by Fleming, has expanded beyond those boundaries thanks to subsequent writers, films. etc.. If there are stories that discuss siblings and the like, we should cite them, noting the discrepancies (cited of course). What would be even better is a secondary source noting these discrepancies. What would be best is to not have the reader read one of the stories wherein they talk about Bond's brother, come here,and find nothing at all about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond (character) → James Bond (literary character) –
 * Protected page; New title is more suitable to the article: the film character is dealt with in another article (James Bond in film) SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – The current title is simpler than the one proposed. And there isn't really a clear opposition between the literary character and the film character. I like the scope of the present article on James Bond (character). It tells an interesting story and is not just a compendium of facts. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not about "simpler": I think misleading may be more the problem! Despite the hatnote on the article saying that it is about the literary character, it is obvious that some of the visitors to the page are looking for something related to the films. Two of the last three Three of the last four feedback notes have been:
 * "I'd like a list of the actors who played James Bond (and the list of films they were in)."
 * "list of movies and charactors" [sic]
 * "The actors or maybe about the movie?"
 * I'm glad you like the article as it stands (as do I) and I am not intending to change anything but the title, which I feel would better serve the content if it were tweaked to describe it better. I disagree that there is no difference between the literary and film characters: there are seven film characters which are all different to each other, let alone Fleming's original. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 02:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose that's not true, "James Bond in Film" deals with the film franchise; it is the film franchise article. It is not the article about the character from the film series. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A questionable "oppose": there are sufficient aspects of the different actors' interpretations within that article to justify the comparison. On top of that, there are the raft of 25 separate film articles which also contain further details. If anyone is sufficiently minded to pull all those details onto one page, then the tweaking of the name of this article will allow a clear distinction for James Bond (film character) page. This article does not cover—indeed does not seek to cover—the seven different interpretations of the film Bond. It deals with the literary Bond only and the tweak is the reflection of that fact. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 02:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a questionable oppose. James Bond film series is the redirect to that article. That article is structure as a film series article. The introductory sentence says The James Bond film series is a British series of spy films -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have obviously misunderstood what is being proposed here, as your edits here and here demonstrate. I'll break it down for you to provide some clarity:
 * The content of this article is about James Bond, the literary character. It does not cover the seven different approaches to Bond provided in the films.
 * In order to best highlight the content in the article, I propose that the title is tweaked to reflect the content.
 * There is no proposal that would affect any other article, certainly not James Bond in film.
 * I hope that is a little more clear, but should you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does clear it up -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer "fictional character", but will accept "literary character". "Character" by itself doesn't work for me. Fanthrillers (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did think about (fictional character), but then realised that the film version would also fit into the same description too, so I plumped for something very literal. I'm open to other suggestions, as long as it is clear that this article is about the Fleming / Gardner / Benson / (Amis, Faulks, Deaver (ugh) and Higson version, rather than the film one. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. I'll add my vote at the bottom of the talk page. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per nominator. I've had some unmentioned concerns about the title of this article for a while now, and I think the proposed move should make it clear to readers what the topic of the article is, as well as help put it into context with related articles. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The fact that we have a disambiguation hatnote on a disambiguated article is a telling sign that the current disambiguation term is not sufficient. If you are going to have a disambiguated title you may as well select one that does the job. Schro can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe the current title is a hangover from a previous incarnation of the article which was just a mash up of book and film stuff before the film interpretations and the literary continuity were divided, so correcting the title is long overdue. Betty Logan (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasoning given by Schrodinger's cat is alive. The new title will be more suitable for the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The extra emphasis of "literary" is needed because many know the character very well but only through the movies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: I think User:Betty Logan, above, sums it up nicely with "the fact that we have a disambiguation hatnote on a disambiguated article is a telling sign that the current disambiguation term is not sufficient". Opera hat (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: For all the reasons above. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.