Talk:James Bond (literary character)/Archive 2

James Bond (film character)
Could I also invite comments on the new article James Bond (film character). Having set the article up shortly after this page changed name, a misguided editor appears to have missed the point entirely and decided to slap a rather pointless deletion tag on it. Any comments would be most welcome at Talk:James Bond (film character). - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to those who commented on the speedy deletion. As can be seen from the front page of the James Bond (film character) article, the same misguided editor has opened the process onto another questionable attempt at Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character). All comments are againn welcome. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that finished quickly... -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference section deleted by accident
I'm new posting on WIkipedia. I just deleted by accident the whole section "Reference" in the article. I'm very sorry. I was just trying to add a new reference to an addition to the article.
 * No worries. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Age
Hello, could someone elaborate on Bond's age, based on the novels? In Casino Royale, which plays in 1951 (according to a hint in Goldfinger), it is said that Bond purchased his Bentley in 1933 (!) and kept it during the war. If Bond was really born in the 1920s, it is rather unlikely that he as a child bought a car. Ziko (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's covered in the background section, but basically Bond was in his late 30s in every novel. Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fleming simply threw chronology to the winds. Cinerama Comment (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

cur | prev) 08:27, 18 August 2013‎ 81.155.37.241 (talk)‎ . . (56,443 bytes) (+212)‎ . . (Undid revision 569046999 by SchroCat (talk)) (undo)
undid revision of SchroCat as not enough detail provided by SchroCat to justify his action.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.37.241 (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. Stop now and complete the discussion before you do anything else. My explanation was clear: your edit was not an improvement. It contained unsourced and misleading information - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ip, you are edit warring based on very poor information. Trying to add trivia is never advisable. Tryi g to add trivia on the basis of "every Bond fan knows" is inexcusable and is nothing more than fan duct. I'll also add that one more revert puts you in breach of wp:3rr, which can lead to an edit block. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to my comments at your talk page, please do not re-add the content without sources. Some of your edits contradict other parts of the article that are sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

New changes to make article more real and in-line with the literary character.

 * Replace second para of article with following::

The Bond character is a 6ft 4in handsome Secret Service agent with jet black hair and piercing blue eyes, code number 007 ("licensed to kill"), residing in London but active internationally. Bond was a composite character who was based on a number of commandos whom Fleming knew during his service in the Naval Intelligence Division and 30 Commando during World War II, to whom Fleming added his own style and a number of his own tastes; Bond's name was appropriated from American ornithologist James Bond. Bond has a number of character traits which run throughout the books, including an enjoyment of cars, attractive women, a love of food and drink especially vodka Martini cocktails, and an average intake of sixty custom-made cigarettes (Senior Service or Lucky Strike) a day.

See James Bond for more accurate information.


 * 6ft 4in is inaccurate, going by what Fleming wrote, and by what we have as sourced information in the article. "Jet black hair and piercing blue eyes" is encyclopaedic and too detailed for the lead. "("licensed to kill")" is a possible addition, but is slightly out of context here. Service with 30 Commando is misleading, and his connection is covered by his NID connection. Additional likes etc are a little too much for the lead. The custom-made cig gives we're certainly not the mass produced Senior Service or Lucky Strike, as every Bond fan knows. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Cambridge
In You Only Live Twice Bond states that he took a First in Oriental Languages at Cambridge. Cripipper (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Only in the film. Certainly not in any of the books. -SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

His drinking

 * This discussion section was moved to here from Talk:James Bond.


 * I have ventured to restore the paragraph "It has been noticed that James Bond's alcohol consumption ..." in James Bond, reformatting the reference as described in the deletion comment. This aspect of these very popular books is noteworthy because it constitutes severe misguidance to the books' readers as to what can be done while continuing with heavy alcohol drinking. (I am teetotal.) I suspect that Fleming with his heavy drinking was liable to the well-known alcohol-induced delusion of super-competence, and incorporated that super-competence as fact in his stories. I have NO connection with the authors of the BMJ article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I certainly think some of the material can be used. I also think the material would be better served on the article about the literary character where Bond's drinking is already covered in some depth: James Bond (literary character). Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed some of it can be used there, but this is the wrong place for it, and there is way too much of it: we need to give a flavour of salient points, not summarise everything in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I have moved it to James Bond (literary character) to avoid WP:Content forking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but there is way too much detail included. The inclusion of so many details provided in of the research is too much, giving too much weight to one small source in one small aspect of a fictional character. - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Anthony, you may not have noticed, but I re-inserted the one line summary of the article, complete with the BMJ ref: it means that the reference on the end of the quote isn't needed ( it never was needed: the existing citation was perfectly adequate). - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25349738 James Bond fits the medical definition of having a drinking problem. I know this discussion is on the literary character not the film portrayal; however in Skyfall it is pointed out as something that makes him unfit for duty. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Scottish ancestry, referenced in MacIntyre
I've just changed the text in the article regarding Bond's Scottish ancestry. The text said that this only came into the books at the penultimate book, You Only Live Twice. However, the previous book, OHMSS, makes the Scottish ancestry very clear, in Bond's own words, during a visit to the College of Arms, so I've changed the text. However, however, the text had a reference to MacIntyre and I don't know if this was concerning the Scottish ancestry parts of the book, or Sean Connery's influence on Fleming to make Bond Scottish, or both. Can anyone with the MacIntyre book have a look and see if the reference still stands? Thanks. --ML5 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * and I've changed it back: Fleming considered the ancestry before Connery became involved. Please don't cut across sources based on your OR. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In On Her Majesty's Secret Service (the film), Bray announces that Bond's line can be traced back to sir Otho/Otto Le Bon of Wickhambreaux, Kent. I haven't read the book so don't know whether this detail was Fleming's creation or Richard Maibaum's, but if it is canonical then it rather puts the lie to Bond's much-vaunted alleged Scottish ancestry, making his father's ancestors English (apparently of Norman origin) centuries before they can ever have been Scottish. Shiresman (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I still don't get it. Bond's background is first mentioned in the book OHMSS. The article text implies his background is first revealled in YOLT. Your | edit removes the " ... humour and Scottish antecedents ..." text (I didn't add it) that had been in place with a citation since 2011. Just wondering ...--ML5 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

structural question
Things are mentioned in the lede that are mentioned again at fuller length in the article, where the references appear. I wonder if anything that is so specific that it needs a reference should be in the lede. I noticed this when the origin of the name is mentioned without reference, to see 2 full paragraphs about it, with reference. --96.127.214.149 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a fair question, so I refer you to MOS:LEAD. Basically there should be no fact or claim (outside of general knowledge) in the body of the article that is unsourced, and the purpose of the lead is to summarise the article. As such it is hard to write a lead that does not include sourced facts from the body of the article. That said the lead should be a general overview and avoid getting into very detailed specifics, and in that regard I think the lead strikes a good balance. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Two should be three?
The opening paragraph states that TWO books were published posthumously, but names three books. I have no idea, so can somebody knowledgeable correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.179.224 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it names two books. Book 1: The Man with the Golden Gun. Book 2: Octopussy and The Living Daylights (which are two of the titles of the short stories within the book). – SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

James Bond as anti-hero
My citation for James Bond as anti hero was reverted at list of fictional antiheroes and here for Category:fictional antiheroes. You ask how is Bond an anti hero---just because he serves his country, does not automatically make him a hero. Bond is a cold, indifferent killer who simply views killing as his job. Whether or not you or I think Bond is an anti hero is irrelevant. I provided citations from a legitimate website that had the following quote from Director Matt Whitecross: This was a citation that provided an opinion for James Bond as an anti hero. For anti heroes of the page, you nor most people need not agree with the opinion. I don't consider The Incredible Hulk an anti-hero necessarily, but I found several sources listing him as one so I put him on the list of fictional antiheroes. As long as a legitimate citation is provided, it should stay up. Other citations: "In the six novels and three short stories, Fleming`s hero was actually an anti-hero."-Frank Sanello, Chicago Tribune.
 * "The real James Bond in the novels is a dark, cold character, the essential anti-hero...Some traits, such as his hostility toward women and his snobbishness, can make him "quite dislikable for a supposedly heroic figure." http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/01/28/ian-fleming-james-bond-bbc-america-miniseries/4945501/
 * The Alcalde Nov 1996 p.31-quote by (author of several James Bond books) Raymond Benson: "[James Bond]'s sort of an anti-hero. He's got vices and he's not perfect."
 * James Bond Movie Posters: The Official 007 Collection. By Tony Nourmand. p 11. "Here was an antihero who was terribly British, who killed in cold blood..."
 * http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-07-16/entertainment/8902180027_1_bond-movies-successful-film-series-bond-films:
 * That's at least 4 citations from legitimate websites or books. They all seem to agree that Bond is an anti-hero. Some others will disagree, but these are all opinions. Ultimately, since I provided citations, my edits should stay. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're in WP:FRINGE territory here - and not all your citatins areas convincing as they first appear: "sort of an anti-hero" doesn't make him an anti-hero, for example. For other references, what makes them knowledgeable about Bond? A journalist and a director who don't understand what an anti-hero is - or what Bond is - isn't enough of a basis to classify Bond as an anti-hero, for example. I've spent the last hour searching through about 40 books on Bond. These range from officially-authorised works from Ian Fleming Publications or Eon, through works by academics and into more general works. None of them refer to Bond as an anti-hero. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But Raymond Benson is an author of Bond books, SchroCat. I think he more than qualifies as an authority on Bond. He certainly views Fleming's Bond as an anti hero. To say the other two don't understand the definition of anti hero, well, maybe they do and maybe they don't, but anti hero is a very loose term to begin with. I mean, people from Tony Soprano (who in my opinion is just a villain protagonist, not an anti hero) to Huck Finn (certainly nowhere near a murderer) to George Costanza (simply a bumbling coward) all qualify as antiheroes, but they have completely different traits. I've seen many books call Huck Finn a hero, but some authors consider him an anti hero. As long as there is even one legitimate citation or opinion, I think it qualifies. The Chicago Tribune and USA Today are certainly reliable websites that are cited frequently on Wikipedia. If Raymond Benson considers Bond an anti hero, I think that's not WP:FRINGE territory, and there is also a book I have given above that states Bond as an anti hero.

Here's another source from Time Magazine: Lara Pulver on Bond: he's the "ultimate anti hero" Kinfoll1993 (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * http://entertainment.time.com/2014/01/30/james-bond-misogynist-fleming-the-man-who-would-be-bond/


 * x2 No, Benson doesn't say that. As I've pointed out, he says "sort of", which isn't the same thing. Do a search of Google books for "James Bond" "anti-hero". You'll see statements that he isn't an anti hero. You'll see comparisons between Bond and anti-heros (stating Bond isn't an anti-hero). You won't see anything calling him an anti-hero. This is a FRINGE theory, or a talking point in the pub, not something reliable enough to go into an encyclopaedia. As to Pulver, an actress repeating the errors of her director isn't reliable either! Avoid the laziness of journalists and look in the academic sources, which is the more reliable path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did look into googlebooks. That was the first place I looked. I almost always go into the books first. You're almost right, not too much came up categorizing Bond as an anti hero for google books. However, if there are other reliable sources, then we can indeed cite them. It does not have to be from books. Where in Wikipedia does it state that we must use book sources and not web sources? Also, I do have a google book source that says he's an antihero-as shown above-here it is again:James Bond Movie Posters: The Official 007 Collection. By Tony Nourmand. p 11.

Benson certainly says "sort of an anti-hero" in the citation above. He doesn't in the citation below though: Pulver isn't repeating the error of her director, it is a matter of opinion whether you think Bond being an anti hero is an error. She and several others consider him (literary Bond) so, even Raymond Benson. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several authors, such as these who call film Bond an anti hero; unfortunately most of the google books about Bond in general are actually focused on film Bond. Some do call him an anti hero:
 * The Superhero Book: The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Comic-book Icons and Hollywood Heroes, By Gina Renée Misiroglu, David A. Roach p 26
 * James Bond and Popular Culture: Essays on the Influence of the Fictional Superspy, edited by Michele Brittany p 122
 * Ian Fleming & James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007, By Edward P. Comentale, Stephen Watt, Skip Willman p 41
 * Observer-Report, November 22, 1998 p 34-Raymond Benson: "He is an anti hero."
 * Most of those refer to the film Bond, so really not valid here. Pulver is repeating the error of the director, so the opinion of a couple of luvvies doesn't match up against the academics in the sources who specifically state that "Bond is not an anti-hero". As to the sources, the peer-reviewed academic sources will, obviously, trump shoddy journalism or actor opinion. We are still in FRINGE territory on thiis. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it shoddy journalism though? That's the USAtoday (extremely popular national U.S. newspaper), the Chicago Tribune (one of the major/forefront newspapers in the U.S.), and TIME magazine(one of the most acclaimed and widely read magazines worldwide). All three are counted as WP:RS, and definitely none are on Wikipedia's blacklist. Many of the books or the authors of these Bond books have a more questionable reputation than these news sources, magazines, and newspapers listed above. And most of the books in general about Bond are about film Bond, who variously categorize him as an action hero, a hero, and an anti hero.

So, how would what I obtained from acclaimed and well-respected newspaper sources, magazines, or other articles not be legitimate? It's not as if I obtained the information from a blog, this is TIME magazine we're talking about. I have sources from copious notable magazines and newspapers, and also two books. None of this qualifies as Fringe per the Wikipedia rules above. Even if it were though, doesn't WP: Neutral point of view state that minority opinions can be recognized along withe the majority opinions, per Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"---which I have indeed done, I have substantiated prominent adherents of the viewpoint of Bond as an anti hero. Even Benson himself, as shown in the new citation above, classifies literary Bond as an anti hero. Yes, but also, who is a better expert on Bond than an author on Bond? If an author of Bond novels considers the literary Bond to be an anti hero, then this needs to be mentioned.Kinfoll1993 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another book calling literary Bond an anti hero: In Search of the Third Man, By Charles Drazin p 141-"Bond, international traveller, spy, and anti hero".
 * Per Verifiability:"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers"
 * Per Notability:"Sources"[2](including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals.) should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."
 * WP:Fringe theories:"Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia."


 * As I've pointed out, most of the references you've come up with relate to the film character, not the literary one, so what appears to be a weight of opinion is a lot slimmer than you think. You are selectively quoting from the various policies, but the bits you are missing out are quite important: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources" is one example. The fact that we have academics specifically stating that Bond is not an anti-hero carries the most weight, as far as I'm concered. Yes, journalism from USAtoday, the Chicago Tribune and Time is normally fairly lazy or shoddy when it comes to popular culture because the journalists are happy to fill space with opinions that are not based on anything other than a need to file copy befoer a deadline. These journalists are not experts in Bond, or what an anti-hero is, but they'll write the nonsense anyway; the academics who spend time studying a subject before they write their papers or books will take a balanced and considered approach, chosing their words much, much more carefully. (I certainly wouldn't rely on anything Wales says: he is one editor, nothing more, and the MoS and our policies will trump him every time). I'd only add that Drazin isn't entirely clear that he's talking about the literary Bond: in the passage he mixes the film and literary Bond up, so it's another questionable one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, most of the references I've provided are for literary bond. Only 3 references were for film Bond, which are stated above. The other two books are for literary Bond specifically, calling him an anti hero-along with the citations for Observer-Report, Time Magazine, The Alcade, and the Chicago Tribune. Drezin is talking about the literary Bond, he follows it up by mentioning that this antiheroic Bond is soon to make his way onto the big screen. He calls him an anti hero right before mentioning the movies, clearly indicating that he's talking about literary Bond. The policy stated above from Jimbo Wales is directly cited in Notability for the "due and undue weight" section. The journalists are getting information from movie directors, a writer on Bond novels, and an actress playing Ian Fleming's wife. If the academics trump the magazines (which they don't because the Wikipedia policies state that you can use various POVs, whether they are the strongest or not, several viewpoints can be recognized, but more weight can be given to one than another-this does not mean it is policy to utterly exclude the so-called minority POV), we can still cite examples of Bond as both hero and anti hero.
 * Benson definitely trumps the academics in categorizing Bond, he is a writer of literary Bond after all. If he considers Bond an anti hero, we should cite him as being one for his Bond novels (if the author of several works on Bond is calling him an anti hero, he's an anti hero-at least for his works, and this should be mentioned somewhere in the article). But, Benson also considers the original literary Bond (Fleming's) an anti hero, he considers Bond an anti hero period-along with the other citations provided who agree with Benson. Wikipedia doesn't state anything about those magazines I provided being shoddy, whether they actually are or not, the actual Wikipedia policy considers them all reliable sources. So it doesn't matter in your opinion if they are shoddy, even if your opinion is accurate, it doesn't outweigh Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, as I stated earlier, Tony Soprano isn't an anti hero. I'm accurate in that statement I think; he is a villain. But we have several sources saying he is an anti hero. Or take Michael Corleone-he's most frequently cited as a villain or a tragic protagonist, but some consider him an anti hero. There are several sources to verify this. Even if the journalists aren't as qualified as the academics, it's still being printed in a major newspaper which is considered a Wikipedia:RS. Prominent, acclaimed, and widely read sources like TIME and Chicago Tribune wouldn't typically risk putting anything low quality in their newspapers. The journalists aren't doing any bad work, they are simply getting information from those they interview. The people being interviewed are stating their opinion, just like academics are stating their opinion, some of which as I have just listed have called him an anti hero. Even if this is minority opinion, why leave any mention of it out? I understand the policy you stated that academic sources are the most reliable, but this policy does not state that other reliable sources should be left out. Wikipedia policy says that copious POVs can be recognized, but if one POVis stronger, simply give more mention or weight to that one. So perhaps the works stating Bond to be a regular hero carry the most weight, but you're making it seem to be that the POVs stating Bond to be an anti hero carry no weight, which isn't true. They carry significant weight, just not as much as the hero argument, but Benson's statement of Bond would most certainly qualify him as being listed on fictional anti heroes, at least for Benson's Bond novels-as this is straight from the author's mouth; cited by reliable newspaper sources. That's the author's interpretation of his own Bond and literary Bond in general, who can argue with that? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The journalists opinions are fairly irrelevant in this. We continually weigh and judge sources here, and minority views from second rate sources like journalists are often trimmed out because they just are not worth the waste of space. This is an encyclopaedia, not a journalist-led fan site, and we try, wherever possible, to ensure that standards are kept, especially from journalists writing bollocks they don't understand. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose every last author who has written on Bond categorizing him as a hero has gotten excellent peer reviews and is widely acclaimed in academia. So they are all more acclaimed than TIME magazine and USAtoday? So an author who has actually written Bond books is speaking "bollocks" apparently? It's just their opinion, just like it's just the authors' opinions. The journalists speak no more BS than the authors; it's all opinion. I wasn't aware that citing journalists from reliable sources would magically turn Wikipedia into a fan site. Fan sites don't have reliable sources. The James Bond wiki fan site has absolutely no reliable sources that I've seen. Wikipedia frequently cites from magazines and newspapers. You ignore Benson's statements on Bond, just because they are taken from an interview (from legitimate sources) rather than a book.
 * You're also ignoring Wikipedia policy that says we can include multiple sources, including so-called "minority" sources. Nowhere in Wikipedia does it say that we eliminate magazine sources or book sources if they are reliable.


 * Third book source: Arguably: Selected Essays, By Christopher Hitchens. p 360. "The anti-hero doesn't begin by calling coolly on M..." Kinfoll1993 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Comment While there may be sources out there that regard Bond as an "anti-hero" I don't think this is the prevailing view. Indeed, I would wager that most sources regard him as a straightforward hero. As Daniel Ferreras Savoye (a professor of comparative literature) notes in The Signs of James Bond, pg 171 that "James Bond does not fall under the category of the anti-hero, for he has no real defect and (...) presents no inner conflicts, either personal or ethical, that would lead him to question the nature of his occupation." Michele Brittany also comments in James Bond and Popular Culture, pg 122 that "like James Bond, the hero of his series (or anti-hero in the case of Bond to some critics)." There clearly is an argument in secondary sources that Bond can be perceived as an "anti-hero", but it is far from a unanimously accepted viewpoint. There is clearly debate on the issue, but I don't think there is any doubt that Fleming wrote him as being motivated by duty and sense of morality, which are not traits that generally characterize an anti-hero. It may be an interesting angle for this article to cover but I don't think it is a widely enough accepted viewpoint to categorize him as an anti-hero. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying. I want to know your opinion on if you think Benson's Bond specifically can be placed in the anti hero category on list of fictional antiheroes, since Benson himself regards him as one (and there are some others who do as well)? I'm just thinking it could be good to present the other POV for Bond as anti hero somehwere in the article---example: "Benson views/wrote Bond as anti hero" or "Some critics/authors regard Bond as anti hero." And also for the film Bond, which has many more citations for him as anti hero than the literary one---do you think that this is a stronger argument for fictional antiheroes? Even Michael G. Wilson considers film Bond an antihero: *"There are plenty of imitators, but Bond really is the first one that was an anti-hero". http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/story/2012-02-01/james-bond-skyfall-sneak-peek-daniel-craig/52907080/1 Kinfoll1993 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This really is no place for any information about the film Bond – or for any discussion about the film version either. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine (I just want to know if there are any objections for film Bond as antihero, because I want to add that category for that page since we have more citations for that version of Bond), but the numerous citations for literary Bond should be acknowledged somewhere in this article. Especially from Benson. I agree with Betty Logan that it could be an interesting angle for this article to at least cover or mention somewhere. This does not mean we put Category: List of fictional antiheroes back up at this article, necessarily. All it means is that we acknowledge that some critics/authors consider him an antihero, including Benson. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not appropriate for the filmography article, as that is not about the character per se, but the film development actor by actor and how they were brought into the role, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll take this discussion to the James Bond filmography talk page, because we have citations for Daniel Craig saying that his bond is an anti hero. Even without the categories: fictional antihero, I'm saying that it should be mentioned in the page somewhere. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've just said, the filmography page is not about the difference in charcterisation between the different Bonds, or about what what character is (we don't have a page that does that) so it's not appropriate to include it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet the tagline at the top states: "This article is about the character of James Bond as portrayed in the film series", which is confusing b/c as you've made clear, it's not. It's about the "film development". In the article, there are quotes from the actors about the characterization of the character. For example:
 * Dalton's Bond was a serious one: dark, cold, emotional stern, ruthless, showing little humour, and focused as a killer with little time for fun and indulgence. Dalton's interpretation of the character came from his "desire to see a darker Bond", one that was "less of a womaniser, tougher and closer to the darker character Ian Fleming wrote about".
 * Connery's interpretation of the character differed considerably from Fleming's, being more promiscuous and cold-blooded than the literary version.[18] Connery described Bond as "a complete sensualist—senses highly tuned, awake to everything, quite amoral. I particularly like him because he thrives on conflict".[19]
 * So, if there is already a quote from Dalton and Connery about the characterization of their respective Bonds, then a quote from Craig where he says that his version of Bond is an antihero is not inappropriate. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is inappropriate. There are a couple of very limited aspect of the main aspects of the character. Craig's self-defined "anti-hero" is not one of the main, defining features of the character. As to the hatnote, there is more than one definition of "character". This is, rather obviously, not about the characterisation, and I've tweaked for clarity. - SchroCat (talk)
 * Well, it's good that you tweaked it, but character in that context did very clearly imply (even if it wasn't the intention) that it was about James Bond as a fictional movie character as opposed to a fictional literary one (especially emphasized in formerly comparing it to "the character as portrayed in literature"), regardless of there being multiple definitions of character. Plus, at the bottom the page says "Thriller film characters", which denotes the page is about the character, even if it is not. The article may not be about characterization in its entirety, but the page does mention several times throughout the characterization, portrayal, and interpretation of multiple Bonds. There are citations on that page from The Daily Mirror, a tabloid paper, mentioning criticism of Craig's Bond as "James Bland." That's a minor criticism about the portrayal-the appearance. His categorization as anti hero is about the actual personality, and the gray lines he's willing to cross, which is more important than a mention of him as boring or bland. Now, if that is mentioned, why can't criticism of Bond as anti hero from a legitimate source (such as a reliable site or newspaper straight from the director's mouth-calling him ) mention it? There is another mention of a reviewer/author calling Dalton's Bond a "muscular vigilante", yet you're saying we can't mention a reviewer/director/actor/critic calling Craig's Bond an "anti-hero" if we have a reliable source? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. The Daily Mirror information isn't about the portrayal: it's about the development of the film series. Who was chosen, how they were chosen, what the reception was etc. It'sblindingly obvious that the Mirror information is exatly what goes in there. The criticism from the paper was way before he'd even started filming, so it was obviously nothing to do with the portrayal: it was to do with the perception of Craig as an individual. If you want to write a new article about the differences in character between the various film Bonds, the go ahead, but when the filmography article touches on character, it summarises the main, defining features of the character, not some minor sub-textual aspect. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless, I think we can say at this point that we obviously strongly disagree and won't concede our points. I want to hear a third opinion, I don't know where Betty Logan is, but they didn't seem against including a mention of Bond as anti hero somewhere in the literary article. I want to know if they agree with me on the same for inclusion of the film Bond, or another opinion if possible. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, not categorizing literary Bond as an anti hero here is one thing, but at List of fictional antiheroes, the rules for listing them are: "Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an antihero, although the classification is somewhat subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of antihero." Therefore, regardless of being subjective or contradicted by numerous other critics, as long as "a critic" (from a reliable source of course) has provided the viewpoint, that page allows the citation to stay. So even if Bond isn't placed into the category:fictional anti heroes here, to revert it at list of fictional antiheroes is in violation of the stated precedent for listing antiheroes. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion to have here, but at the other page. It seems to be a second-rate page, riddled with all sorts of problems and inaccuracies, so one more isn't going to make too much difference. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the page has some problems, which is why it has the cleanup tag at the top. But those are the guidelines b/c the definition of anti hero is nearly always contested. Anyway, I'm still for this article's inclusion of mentioning James Bond as anti hero. This does not mean we place him into "Category:fictional antiheroes". As Betty Logan and I were discussing, it could be an interesting angle to mention it somewhere here.Kinfoll1993 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Further comment With regards to the filmography article, that article is really about the casting and different interpretations of the actors who played Bond, rather than the character itself (which has very little continuity from actor to actor anyway). While there are clearly sources backing the view that Daniel Craig portrays him as an anti-hero I don't think the categorization really applies to Connery's and Moore's (or even Lazenby's) depictions, so again I don't think the category would be entirely appropriate. I would also wager that most of the "anti-hero" epithets have come during Craig's tenure, and mostly apply to his depiction. That said, I think it would be acceptable to cover the "anti-hero" angle in the section on Craig's Bond (especially if Craig himself and Michael Wilson see the part that way), provided it is appropriately sourced. As for the "List of fictional anti-heroes" article I don't oppose nor support the inclusion of Bond; lists have a wide variance of inclusion criteria that must be determined within the context of the other entries. That's a discussion that needs to take place at that article talk page since the arguments here are not tautological. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Would you be opposed to any mention of the literary Bond as anti hero in this page, per appropriate citations from Benson or other authors concerning his or Fleming's Bond? Kinfoll1993 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In general terms I am not opposed to it, but it ultimately comes down to who is saying what and also what they are referring to. We have to be careful not to take things out of context. We already have a section about Benson's Bond in this article, so if Benson is on record as saying he wrote Bond as an anti-hero that could be integrated fairly organically into the existing section. Betty Logan (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Update
I realise this is about the books and not the films but should there not be some small mention of the fact that in the new, cyber-age films Bond is again around forty? 109.145.195.154 (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because this is about the books, not the films. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on James Bond (literary character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227092749/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=141 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=141
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227071253/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=176 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=176
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227093615/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=138 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=138
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227071453/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=81 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=81
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227071357/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=177 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=177
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6hlY9cowY?url=http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/455547/ to http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/455547/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Bond (literary character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815225420/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=96 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=96
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227093337/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=153 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=153
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415123737/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=268 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=268

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Fleming's sketch of Bond
Am I the only one who notices quite a similarity between Fleming's idea of how Bond looks and Sidney Paget's drawings of Sherlock Holmes?

Granted, the nose is different, but in the drawing of a thoughtful/pensive Bond/Holmes, they look very similar.

Just a thought. 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * He looks like an idealised younger Ian Fleming to me, which is fitting. Fleming drew deeply on his experiences in wartime intelligence to create Bond. 2.28.151.181 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

James Bond (literary character) → James Bond (character) – Over-precise disambiguation. The current title is a relic of when we had a separate James Bond (film character), which now redirects to James Bond filmography. But the idea that they were somehow two different characters has always been WP:OR. Bond is far from the only fictional character whose portrayals differ in different media (one could easily argue that all characters do!). And the filmography isn't even linked in the hatnote, nor does it need to be. There's little to be gained by this longer title. For an opposing view and some history, see Talk:James Bond (literary character)/Archive 1, which established this title in 2012. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: differences in portrayal can be highlighted within the article, if thought worthwhile. --Woofboy (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move, and also redirect the "film character" article.  ONR  (talk)  10:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Kryn. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not overprecise.  The literary and film characters are not the same.  While often true, James Bond is a particularly prominent case. Other cases, such as Sherlock Holmes are less prominent in difference due to the vast number of different adaptations from literature to radio, theatre and film.  Although multiple actors and directors have created their own Bonds, the film Bonds have a stronger single theme than their difference from the literary Bond.  This is not OR, eg 1 eg 2 eg 3, but a classic literature/film case of difference, and BDD, I think you deserve a trout for your third sentence.  The literary and film Bonds are not subject to the same secondary source analysis, making them two distinct although related topics.  Literary and film commentary exist independently, with overlap that is infrequent and often ignored.  It is important that the two topics include the distinguishing "film" or "literary" to meet WP:PRECISE.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with SmokeyJoe that the disambiguator is not overly precise. WP:PRECISE states that "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", and I don't think James Bond (character) alone would do that. The literary tradition (dominated by Fleming's writing) and the film depiction (mostly produced by just the one production company) have distinct lineages and the article structures (James Bond (literary character) and James Bond filmography) simply reflect that. Whether they are the same character or not is complicated, and there is no simple answer to that. Just a simple rename isn't going to alter the reality that two articles currently exist covering the character in two distinct mediums, and while that remains the case the scope needs to be reflected in the titling. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe and Betty Logan: are you satisfied with the status quo, or should something be done to James Bond (character)? --BDD (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BDD. This is a good question.  It is a problem.  NB. As you might see in the archives, I was slow to be persuaded of the merits of the character split, but in the end was, and came to value this thread.  James Bond (character) has many incoming links.  I intended to look at a selection of them.  However, my gut reaction (often wrong) is that the better target is James Bond filmography, because in my experience everyone knows of the films, and relatively few have read the books.  A TWODAB page is possible but I think undesirable, the incoming links are mostly casual references, arguably overlinking.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The incoming links are a result of the move so it should stay pointing here until this issue is addressed. If these were fixed there is no reason to have the redirect at all IMO. If you want to retain it then it would probably be sensible to not second guess the reader or editor and just redirect to James Bond (disambiguation). Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * James Bond (character): Delete or retarget to James Bond (disambiguation), yes. How does one fix all the incoming links? It looks tedious, is there a trick?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a trick. We convert the redirect to a disambiguation page with all the possible options on it and then let https://tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php?title=James+Bond+(character) populate, which will occur within 24 hours. Once the list is populated any one of us can rifle through the links and convert them with a single click. I'd estimate that it would take half an hour tops for one editor. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am normally a proponent of viciously cutting superfluous verbiage from disambiguators, but in this case, the current title meets the requirements of WP:PRECISION.  The article is only about the literary character and not the film one as it should be.  A move would widen the scope of the article, but as User:SmokeyJoe notes, there can hardly be said to be a single Bond film character; thus the film character is better dealt with in the individual film articles and the James Bond filmography article.  James Bond (film character) should continue to direct to the latter.  James Bond (character) can continue to direct to James Bond (literary character) per WP:TWODABS I've added a hatnote to this article to help.  —  AjaxSmack  00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fleming sketch of Bond date
What was the date of when Fleming's sketch of James Bond was made? I want to add the date to the top image's description so that the copyright status for the image can be determined. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem to date to 1957: James_Bond_(literary_character). Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, made sure that this file tracked the date too. Tracking the date of creation of an old artwork is worth inserting. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced or partly sourced information
, please don't keep reverting the addition of CN tags. There is no source at the end of the paragraphs I tagged, so they need a RELIABLE source to be added - not a second-rate blog page. I have tagged two paragraphs with CN tags, and one with a "failed verification" tag. As I put clearly in the edit summary, "Only some of this information is supported by the source, much if it isn't. Another source is needed to support about a third of the paragraph". What on earth led you to undertake a knee-jerk revert on that without providing a source? You do appreciate that all information should be supported, I hope? The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

, please don't keep adding fansite links to the article. If you want to have the information supported, use something like Google Books or Internet Archive to find published RELIABLE sources. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not true and you know it. I removed the CN and replace it with a source. Why should you mention you previous editor name, if you edit under a IP address? What is the need for that?Lobo151 (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is not true? That you deleted CN tags without replacing them with a reliable source? Of course you did: here and here. Neither of those sites are reliable enough to use (and if they were you should never just drop in a bare url). In some of your edits you removed the CN tags without even bothering to replace with anything. Let me be clear about the two links you keep edit warring to for in: neither www.jamesbondlifestyle.com or www.007travelers.com are reliable. If you think otherwise, please feel free to go file at the WP:RSN to see what they say. (They will point out that they are unreliable fansites, but it's clear you're not listening to me, so maybe hearing it from them will be the only way the message is taken on board). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact is that I still was busy adding them, but you already start to revert the edit before I could added them. The fact they are UNRELIABLE is a different point. Instead you go to a different user talkspage and telling not the whole story about the edits here.Lobo151 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you have cut and pasted this comment here, as well as at someone else's talk page (it's going off at a tangent from the main point), but I'll copy the relevant part of my response here just so everyone appreciates what I said: "Yes, I reverted your addition of an UNRELIABLE link: it should never have been added. An unreliable link is as bad as no source at all. It has to be a reliable source that covers all the information it is supposed to be supporting - this is the basis of WP. Please do not try to add fansite or blog links again (to any page, not just this one), but use published material from books, if possible." - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7007:3D98:FCBB:6145 (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * So only material from books can be reliable? That is strange and not true. Information from website can be reliable.

Why should you still mention you previous editor name, if you edit under a IP address? What is the need for that?Lobo151 (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not said that only material from books can be reliable, but the websites that contain information about Bond tend to be fan sites or self-published, rather than being reliable sources. Books are a far safer bet when dealing with a topic in popular culture. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:AC7F:326C:C20A:1F6B (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The James Bond Lifestyle site is a not reliable per WP:SPS. It says at https://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/about-bond-lifestyle that "The Bond Lifestyle website was founded in October 2005 by Remmert van Braam, in order to make an informational fan website about the products and brands that are used by the fictional character James Bond in movies and books." Self-published sources are sometimes acceptable if the author is an established authority (usually they are published in the field and cited by other reliable sources), but this doesn't seem to be one of those instances. What I would say if the information comes out of the book then it should be relatively straightforward to find legitimate citations for it, even if that means citing the books and chapters themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Early life section
has completely re-written the "Early life" section in the article. I have reverted him several times now linking to the appropriate policy in the edit summary, but my concerns appear to be falling on deaf ears so I will outline them here. Here are the two versions:
 * Long-standing version
 * Tsc9i8's re-write


 * 1) The long-standing version is based on authoritative secondary sources. Tsc9i8's re-write strips out these secondary sources and replaces them with direct citations to the novels i.e. primary sources. The change in sources occurs at roughly citation #30. My objection to this is that Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources. WP:PSTS states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Primary sources can be used for sourcing basic statements of fact, but secondary sources must be used for analysis, interpretations and conclusions.
 * 2) A consequence of this new approach with the sources is that in Tsc9i8's re-write of the section now relays details about Bond's background in the sequence of the novels, rather than in the chronology of Bond's life. This is an especially counter-intuitive approach because it means that details about Bond's childhood that were divulged in the later novels now appear towards the end of the section, rather than at the beginning where they would make more sense (take for example the death of his parents). This approach is counter-intuitive and makes the section disorganized. Any major restructuring of the section should have been discussed beforehand.
 * 3) Tsc9i8 contends that he has not added interpretive analysis and has only made "corrections", but it seems he is doing quite a bit more than that. There are many examples but I will focus on just one to highlight the problem: Bond's age and dob are never given in the novels, although lax continuity does imply several dates and ages at certain points. In the long-standing version, the first paragraph notes that Bond was 8 years from retirement in Moonraker, and depending on when the novels are set various scholars have arrived at 1920 or 1921 for his year of birth. Tsc9i8 removes these sources and dates and changes Bond's Moonraker age from 37 to 36 and then surmises that Bond was born in 1916 or 1917. This is clearly problematic because these dates are not given in the novels. Tsc9i8 has surmised these dates himself, by introducing a further assumption about the time-frame for From Russia with Love. This is textbook WP:Synthesis, WP:Original research and WP:Editorializing. It is also worth noting that the "errors" in Bond's chronology often result from Fleming not respecting his own continuity, with him often retrospectively altering it.

As editors, we are free to disagree with the interpretations and conclusions of these writers, but on Wikipedia we are not free to replace their observations with our own. While it is perfectly acceptable to cite Moonraker directly for the claim that Bond is 8 years from retirement (although a secondary source is preferred if available) it is not acceptable to cite claims for Bond's age and date of birth to the novels if they are not directly given. Conclusions about the biographical details of Bond's life are mostly the result of study and analysis of patchy and contradictory information and how it all fits together, and must be attributed to secondary sources. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I obviously agree here with Betty Logan, and just want to note that while details from the novels need not be cited (like "Bond is eight years from retirement"), in my opinion, synthetic observations that draw on various bits and/or various novels should be--so if we say Fleming "periodically refers" to something, that really needs a secondary source, by my lights. As ever, just my opinion and if the weight of consensus goes against me, no worries!  Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * First, let's deal with the information in the existing section that is objectively wrong.
 * The current section says that Fleming made Bond a Scot in You Only Live Twice, which he wrote after Dr No was released this theatres. This is incorrect: he made Bond a Scot in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which he wrote during the filming of Dr No.
 * The current section also says the Soviet file on Bond reports that he received his CMG in 1954. It doesn't: it says he received it in 1953. In You Only Live Twice, Fleming changes the date to 1954.
 * The assassination of the Norwegian didn't take place during the war. In From Russia with Love it is revealed to be the "Highsmith file of 1950."


 * Second, I'd like to explain the new information I've added.
 * As it is now, the section omits that Bond joined the service before the war, a vital detail which I have added under the sub-heading "pre-war service." This sub-heading also includes information about ::the pre-war mission that preceded Casino Royale.
 * There is currently no information on what Bond did during the war. In the "World War II" sub-heading I have compiled all references to Bond's wartime activities.
 * I added the quote about Hannes Oberhauser being a "father figure" to Bond. This is a rather important biographical point, no?
 * Bond's first post-war mission, which was in Jamaica, also doesn't appear.


 * Is there any objection to keeping this information? Is there any objection to using sub-headings to organise the periods of his life?


 * The main point of contention here seems to be with Bond's date of birth, so I'll try to defend what I've written. In the books, Fleming only twice mentions details relevant to Bond's age: in Moonraker and in You Only Live Twice. In Moonraker he says Bond is 37 (eight years from turning 45). Fleming wrote Moonraker in 1954, and both John Griswold and Henry Chancellor date the action to 1953. Therefore, at this stage in the series, Bond was born in 1916. This isn't a personal inference, it's the equation Fleming gives us. In You Only Live Twice, Fleming says Bond was 19 in 1941, meaning he was born in 1921. Again, this isn't a personal interpretation. Inarguably, Bond's date of birth changed, and Fleming de-aged the character later in the series. The opening line of the section says that Bond didn't age. This is unprovable: outside of the two mentions of Bond's age cited above, there's no reference to how Bond ages through the series, although Fleming hints that Bond is getting older and more tired.


 * I would be glad to continue debating the DoB issue, but is there any objection to re-adding the second half of what I've written (beginning at "early career")? It is chronological.Tsc9i8 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am happy to work through it with you towards a solution but changes need to be undertaken in a more orderly fashion. I don't want to labor this point, but let's take the age example again to illustrate the problem I have with your approach: In Moonraker it is agreed that Bond is approximately eight years away from retirement (age and year not given). We have a secondary source in place that corroborates this, and yet you have removed that source multiple times and replaced it with a direct citation to Moonraker, effectively ignoring WP:PSTS. You then infer from the publication date (original research) and from Griswold and Chancellor's dating of the events of Moonraker that Bond must have been born in 1916 or 1917 (depending on whether the events take place in 1953 or 1954). But you didn't cite Griswold or Chancellor you just cited Moonraker, despite the fact the information itself cannot be found in the novel. It is also not straightforward with the dates suggested by You Only Live Twice either: Fleming does not say Bond was 19 in 1941; the obituary in YOLT states that Bond claimed to be 19 in 1941. You surmised this implied Bond was born in 1922 in your re-write, although it in fact implies Bond was born in 1921 if he enlisted during the first 10 months of 1941. There is some obvious ambiguity here because the obituary intimates that Bond lied about his age. In the same novel Tiger relates to Bond that he was born in the "Year of the Rat" which would put Bond's dob in 1924 (which would be consistent with him lying about his age to enlist). So you've got two conflicting dates, and also the possibility that neither of them are true. Then again there is a lack of continuity between the novels so it is possible Bond may have been born in 1916 in Moonraker, and he may have been born in 1921 (or 1924) in You Only Live Twice. They could be both true or they could be both wrong, but either way you need sources to that effect. You still need to cite Griswold or Chancellor for the 1916/17 date, and it doesn't override the 1920/21 date.  Part of the problem with directly citing the books is that Fleming is sometimes purposefully vague. The phrasing also needs to be tighter in places too: for example, Fleming doesn't necessarily change the date that Bond was awarded his CMG, it is entirely possible the Soviet file on Bond just got the date wrong; I doubt his CMG was announced in The Times.


 * That said, many of your suggestions are reasonable and would improve the encyclopedic value of the article: I agree that information that is demonstrably incorrect should be corrected (preferably with a secondary source, but if not available then a citation to novel and chapter would suffice). I have no objections to fleshing out some of Bond's early career background (in fact it seems a like a good idea) although I do not think it is necessary to have separate sections for "Early career", "World war II", and "Post-war career"; there isn't much there and could all be combined under "Early career". I recommend a systematic and incremental approach: correcting the clearly incorrect information first, and then adding in the extra background information. The conflicting stuff should be left until everything else is sorted out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's leave the date of birth aside for now. At the very least, I'll say that the current section doesn't reflect all of the possibilities and relies too heavily on what continuation authors wrote, which in my opinion shouldn't factor in the biography section. Anyhow...


 * On the matter of primary sources, I respectively disagree with you. I would like to point to the page on Sherlock Holmes, the English literary figure most comparable to James Bond in notoriety. That article has an extensive biography section that we should perhaps use as a model. On that page, all assertions about Holmes's biography refer to the original source material where the facts originate. When discussing a literary character's biography, it is more authoritative to refer to the primary source than a secondary source. This is especially important in the case of James Bond, where later authors invented facts about the character (see John Pearson). With all due respect, like the Holmes page, I argue that any claim about the character's biography should refer to the stories themselves. Likewise, that character's biography is broken into sections for the periods of his life.


 * I'm going to correct some information that's clearly wrong and re-add the headings. The headings provide a quick summary for readers of the character's activities prior to the first novel. As well, "early career" is a poor descriptor in which to include his military service (which wasn't a career per se).Tsc9i8 (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you continue to restore content for which there is no consensus I will be left with no choice but to report your account. The approach taken at Sherlock Holmes is irrelevant: it is not a peer reviewed article whereas this article has been reviewed as a "Good article", precisely for the reason it conforms to editing policies. I have agreed to work with you on this but when you make changes on this scale it is impossible to discern what edits have been made. The article should remain in its WP:STATUSQUO versions until there is a consensus about which changes need to be made. Betty Logan (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Corrections
contends above that the following corrections need to be made:

"First, let's deal with the information in the existing section that is objectively wrong.
 * The current section says that Fleming made Bond a Scot in You Only Live Twice, which he wrote after Dr No was released this theatres. This is incorrect: he made Bond a Scot in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which he wrote during the filming of Dr No. ✅
 * The current section also says the Soviet file on Bond reports that he received his CMG in 1954. It doesn't: it says he received it in 1953. In You Only Live Twice, Fleming changes the date to 1954. ✅
 * The assassination of the Norwegian didn't take place during the war. In From Russia with Love it is revealed to be the "Highsmith file of 1950." ❌"

I agree with Tsc9i8 that we should deal with the incorrect information first. If we could locate secondary sources to enable these corrections that would be a step in the right direction. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The first two corrections should be easy to sort out. I have a secondary source for the first one. However, can you please clarify the context of the third correction? I have just consulted my copy of From Russia with Love which mentions the Highsmith file, but I do not see where it is tied to the assassination of the Norwegian double agent. You also state that Bond joined the service in 1938 when he was 21; while I can verify that he joined the service in 1938 I do not see where it states his age as 21. Betty Logan (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bond killed the Norwegian during the war - it’s covered in Casino Royale (and the secondary sources). The “Highsmith file of 1950” is the name and date of a Russian file, not when the incident occurred. Errors in understanding like this are why we rely on secondary sources.
 * The date of birth is a problematic point. Fleming contradicts himself on dates, so it’s just not possible to work out when Bond was born or exactly what age he was at any particular point (outside those Fleming specifically mentions). You state categorically that Bond was born in 1916. Fleming disagrees. Bond left school aged 17 and “By now it was 1941 and, by claiming an age of nineteen and with the help of an old Vickers colleague of his father, he entered a branch of what was subsequently to become the Ministry of Defence.” If he was 17 in 1941, he was born in 1924. He’d also have been 14 when it was 1938 and he joined the Service and was sent to a casino in Portugal. Fleming didn’t keep track of the exact dates of Bond’s life and mixes them around a lot. It’s why we can’t piece together a seamless and perfect timeline, and why we have to use secondary sources.
 * It’s fiction: Bond’s reality is rather flexible and contradictory, which is why it’s dangerous to rely too heavily on the primary material. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:21FF:F644:F10F:EBBE (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of the CMG, we need to get secondary sources for both dates, so as not to be favouring just one of them. I'll see what I can dig up. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC) - Now ✅


 * The corrections (apart from the assassination of the Norwegian double-agent which doesn't check out) have been completed. Before considering any other additions it would be helpful to know if is satisified with the alterations so far. Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * These are fine with me. Thank you for making those changes. I had additional details about how and where Bond revealed his Scottish ancestry that I think would add to the article. I'm not going to go into the date or birth any further. Is there any objection to adding a paragraph explaining that Bond joined the secret service prior to the War, and executed a similar gambling mission to that of Casino Royale?


 * Do I have approval to re-add the paragraph detailing Bond's naval service? None of that information is on the page currently? As well, I would like to re-add the quote about Hannes Oberhauser being a "father figure." That's a vital biographical detail.Tsc9i8 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If they are accompanied by secondary sources then that is fine, but if you are just going to cite the books themselves then I do not agree with that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which means its purpose is to summarise published writings on a particular subject. The goal here is not to construct an intricate biography of the character but to summarise published writing about the character. It doesn't really matter how Bond revealed his ancestry; what matters here from an encyclopedic perspective is that the character was given a Scottish father in response to Sean Connery being cast. If you want to document every fictional biographical detail of Bond's life then there are fan wikis out there that do precisely this type of thing. I actually think some of your further suggestions (such as adding more context to Hannes Oberhauser's role in Bond's life) would benefit the article, so I will try and dig up some further sources for this information this weekend and re-add it to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of Oberhauser, he's very minor in the Fleming literary canon and certainly not "vital". He's only mentioned in one short story and not referred to in the rest of the Bond stories. I think the only real interest in him has come about since Spectre (2015 film) was released. Whether that warrants inclusion in an article about the literary character is a moot point. In terms of the secondary sources I have to hand, Benson's Bedside Companion, Chancellor's Man and His World and Griswold's Annotations and Chronologies refer to him in passing as part of the Octopussy story and separately namecheck him as teaching Bond to ski, but zero references as a "father figure". Macintyre, Lindner and Lycett don't mention him at all. It seems more a point of trivia than anything else (or did until the 2015 film used him as a MacGuffin). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:643D:D45C:44C6:BB21 (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've added the two dates Bond joined MI6 and mentioned the work in Monte Carlo (which I think is a little trivial to include) in this edit. As Bond's wartime activities don't really appear in the secondary sources (one or two have very, very brief mentions that Bond saw active service), I don't think it worth adding any more information - and certainly not having a sub-section for it. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:643D:D45C:44C6:BB21 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Charles James Bond

 * gravestone of Charles James Bond before it was changed to James Charles Bond OO7
 * 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

James Bond actor history FROM 1954
1950-59 007:4 1954 Casino Royale TV Barry Nelson 1955 Moonraker radio Bob Holness 1956 Moonraker movie Dick Bogarde 1959 Moonraker movie Laurence  Harvey

1960-69. 007:14 1962 Dr No From Russia with love and Goldfinger Bob Simmons stuntman Gunbarriel sequence 🔫(Connery )🔫Casino 1963 Luella The Saint Bond tv:🔫Sir Roger Moore 1964 Mainly Millicent TV 🔫007:Sir Roger Moore 1965 Thunderball 007 : 🔫Sean Connery 🔫Frank Cousins 1967 Casino Royale 007: David Niven Terence Cooper Peter Selles Woddy Alen Johanna Pettet Barbara Bouchet Ursula Andress Deliah Lavi 1967 🔫You only live twice 007:Connery 1968 Duniya James Bond of India Bond:Johnny Walker 1969 OHMSS 🔫007:George Lazenby 1970-79. 007:3 1971 Diamonds are forever 🔫007:Sean Connery 1973 Live and let die 🔫007 :Sir Roger Moore 1973 OMNIBUS Goldfinger TV:Christopher Cazenove 1974 The man with golden gun 🔫Sir Roger Moore 1977 The Spy who love 🔫007:Sir Roger Moore 1979 Moonraker 🔫007:Sir Roger Moore

1980-89. 007:6 1981 For yours eye only 🔫007:Sir Roger Moore 1983 Octopussy 🔫007:Sir Roger Moore Never say never again 🔫007:SEAN Connery Return of the man from UNCLE 🔫JB :George Lazenby 1984 Mad Mission 3Our man from BOND street Bond:Jean Mersant Mr Bond Neil Connery 1985 A view to a kill 🔫007:Sir Roger Moore 1987 The living Daylights 🔫007:Dalton 1989 Licence to kill 007:Dalton Diamonds are forever 🔫James Brown :George Lazenby

1990-1999 007:2 1990 You only live twice 007:Michael Jayston 1995 Goldeneye 🔫007:Brosnan 1997 Tomorrow never die 🔫007:Brosnan 1999 The world is not enought 🔫007:Pierce Brosnan

2000-2009 007:2 2006 Casino Royale 🔫007:Daniel Craig 2008 tv Goldfinger 007:Tony Stephens Quantum of solace 🔫007:Craig 2010 Dr No 007:Tony Stephens

2010-2021 007:3 2012 Skyfall 🔫007:Craig From Russia with love
 * Tony Stephens

2018 Spectre 🔫007:Craig 2021 No time to die 🔫007:Craig 🔫Lashana Lynch 2A02:2121:6AB:73DA:54B0:69D2:3CAC:6EAD (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)