Talk:M (James Bond)/Archive 1

Untitled
Maybe "M" means Masterman...

John Cecil Masterman (January 12, 1891 – June 6, 1977) was a noted academic, sportsman and author. However, he was best known as chairman of the Twenty Committee, which during World War II ran the Double Cross System, the ingenious scheme that controlled double agents in Britain.

In Casino Royale 2006, Bond is about to reveal M's name when she interrupts him, threatening to have him killed if he utters 'another syllable'! We hear a distinct "Muh-..." before Bond is cut off by her threat. This could be Mansfield, but it sounds more like he was going to say Masterman...

I wish Sir Fleming would confirm.

Henryandbea (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

}I had previously figured that "M" stood for "Minister" as in Minister of Intelligence. Oh well.

Spoiler Warning Added
Added a spoiler warning - I am a new Bond fan and now won't enjoy Man with the Golden Gun or Licence to Kill. Thanks for nothing to the previous authors....... Well I guess that the contributions themselves are worth something so keep them coming (a little more carefully perhaps :)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.7.82 (talk • contribs).

The Man Who Was M
I understood that the first 'M' was Sir James Melville, who died in 1918. He was from Caherciveen, Co. Kerry, Ireland. Fergananim 21:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the first M"? As far as an inspiration for M goes, I've read a number of Fleming biographies and James Bond "historical" type books and I don't recall seeing this name. Do you have a source for this? K1Bond007 22:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, a book that was published last year that dealt in some depth on his life and carrear. I'll look around for it and see what I can come up with. Mind you, I think I may have confused the relevant British security forces. Fergananim 00:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Stella Rimington, in her book, also suggests that 'M' came from Melville

Also seems to be confirmed in Andrew Cook's book: Please see review pasted below:


 * M: MI5's First Spymaster, Andrew Cook

Military Review, Nov-Dec, 2005  by Andrew M. Roe M: MI5's First Spymaster, Andrew Cook, Tempus Publishing Limited, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom, 2004, 287 pages, $30.00.

M: MI5 's First Spymaster is the absorbing biography of William Melville, the founding father of the British Secret Service (MI5) and the man who came to be known as the original "M." Drawing on declassified accounts and interviews with Melville's family and the descendants of those who played central roles, Andrew Cook skillfully portrays the diverse, intriguing life of Britain's first spymaster. Cook, a renowned British historian and intelligence expert, purports that Melville was "one of the most influential counter-espionage figures of the twentieth century."

While of limited utility for today's intelligence community, Melville's story is intriguing. During his career, he was involved in many of London's high-profile crime dramas, including the Jack the Ripper investigations. He also successfully countered Irish Republican Army terrorism, assassination attempts on Queen Victoria, and anarchist bomb plots.

After his secret transfer to the war office, Melville deftly coordinated the recruitment and coordination of foreign and domestic agents--arguably his greatest achievement. It is little wonder that in the James Bond novels Ian Fleming used Melville as his model for "M."

M is carefully researched and offers engaging insights into a man who contributed significantly to Britain's homeland security. Cook provides a balanced, if on occasion overly sympathetic, portrayal of an elusive, yet remarkable man. Alas, M has one small shortcoming: Cook fails to reveal the hazards and tension that accompanied many of the events he describes. This is disappointing for the lay reader, but overall, M is an enjoyable study.

That confirms that Andrew Cook thinks that he was the source of M - but is there anything from Ian Fleming quoted or mentioned to confirm that? --Charlesknight 21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

M's name in The World is Not Enough
Wasn't M's (Judi Dench) name—or an allusion to a possible name—given in a three-way conversation between her, Bond and another character in the opening scenes? --JB Adder | Talk 03:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of 'M'
In Season Three of the popular BBC show "Yes Minister" there is reference to 'M' as well. During a meeting of the Permanent Secretaries to the Cabinet, the subject of equal opportunity employment is raised. At some point in the discussion, Sir Humphrey states that you couldn't for instance, promote a woman to be head of Defense, since 'M' would have to become 'F'.

See: --80.200.233.243 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.tv.com/yes-minister/equal-opportunities/episode/74549/recap.html?tag=episode_recap;recap
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcvTHNq29Pc&feature=related

Changed to MI7 and MI6
Added MI7 to correspond with lines featured in the film Dr. No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.160.76 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dench & Goldeneye
I'm afraid that the info I've taken out isn't viable: it needs to come from a second source (a magazine, academic work, newspaper etc). Writing that something from a film implies something else is classified as original research, as it could be interpreted differently from your version. What is needed is to cite someone else saying it. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What if it was from a quote website of the film? If so I've found these, would these be ok as a reference as they are actually quotes from the film put onto a website; | see here. These is a transcript of the film and the quote can be found about half way down the page [ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/g/goldeneye-script-transcript-james-bond.html | see here]. This one is IMDB, which I know is apparently and unreliable source, but it isn't changing anything in the actual quotes from the film | see here. This is a script of the film | see here.
 * Here is a video of the scene | see here. The quote is about 1 minute 30 seconds in. Would these or at least one of these be ok for a reference? Charlr6 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you've grasped what I'm saying here. Yes, "the new M is a Lady" is a line from the film - that is not under debate (although it's a pointless one to put in there on its own) What you're doing is interpreting that quote to mean something. That's the bit you have to find a source for (ie "implying that the previous M's were possibly men") the implication you have put in is one possibility only and there are other ways of interpreting it. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But they were men before, Bernard Lee and Robert Brown. It's not an implication when the previous films show two actors playing M. The line was addressed Bond fans as they themselves know there wasn't a female 'M' before hand and Valentin said "I hear the new M is a lady" which it is, and even the fans and myself and you know that. In some way it was kind of breaking the fourth wall and addressing that the gender of the character had changed. What if I said in the article that, Valentin says "I hear the new M is a lady" and it would be true as the character hasn't been a woman before. Charlr6 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that everything you say is from original research and has absolutely nothing to back it up. In your words, "The line was addressed Bond fans"? It was "breaking the fourth wall"?? Errmm... your interpretations are a long way from a lot of other peoples on this - which is exactly the reason for having to have citations to back up any assertions. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But Goldeneye is the first James Bond film to feature a female 'M', and the character Valentin was addressing the fact that the new M was a lady which we both know as the previous M's WERE men. And how can my interpretation be a long way from other people on this when its only you and myself discussing the subject, no one else has came and said "I never got that from that line". But Valentin said to Bond "I hear the new M is a lady", and the character is now a lady unlike the previous men who played the character. Charlr6 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your analysis is probably right—at least I would tend to agree that was the essence of the comment—but the problem is it is still analysis by an editor. By the same token since Valentin is from Russia—which is a very patriarchal society—then he simply could have been taking the piss out of Bond being commanded by a woman. If anything this is a WP:WEIGHT issue i.e. we shouldn't include analysis/a point of view unless the same observations are made in published sources, because we not only have to establish the accuracy of the information but also the notability of it.  If sources don't cover something, chances are it is too trivial to cover which raises the question about whether we should include it on Wikipedia. I don't think SC is especially opposing it as content, just the grounds upon which is being included. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Order
The M of the info box is in chronological order, as per James Bond. The rest of the article makes it clear who is in the Eon series and who is not. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the one who changed the order in the infobox, not me. I merely added a yearspan and "Unofficial" to be in line with the Q and Moneypenny articles. Clearly there is a disparity between these characters' infoboxes and the James Bond infobox, and perhaps this should be discussed across James Bond articles so a decision can be made. For now, it is you who is changing the order and format without consensus to do so; the format I am using is in line with Q and Moneypenny articles which are closer in comparison than James Bond. Please await any consensus from discussion — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The yearspan is a good thing: it's been left in there as it is in line with a number of the other Bond-related articles. M is one of the articles that has recently been passed as a GA—along with James Bond and a number of others. Bond and M are the first character articles to be fully updated and to pass as GA standard. Felix Leiter is currently a work in progress. Bond and M list the actors in the infobox by chronological order of playing the character whilst the article itself makes it clear who is part of the Eon series and who is from the non-Eon series. Please also note that as all the films were produced legally, under the relevant copyright and licensing laws, "Official" and "Unofficial" are mis-leading terms. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have initiated discussion at Talk:James Bond about the issue, and ideally whatever the consensus ends up being there should apply for all James Bond articles. Q and Moneypenny infoboxes should remain as-is (years-long status quo) until any such consensus emerges. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 21:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Marion Hargreaves
What source confirms Admiral Hargreaves' first name? Also, I never thought it was explicitly clear whether Robert Brown's M was also Messervy, or was a newly promoted Hargreaves. 108.20.187.150 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Marion name was a legacy from the page before a re-write: I've had another search, which doesn't show any confirmation of it, so I have removed it (I suspect it's from one of the Benson books). In terms of the Hargreaves name, it's already justified in the text "Bond scholars Steven Jay Rubin and John Cork and Collin Stutz all consider Admiral Hargreaves would have been promoted to the role of M, rather than Brown playing a different character as M". - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems POV though that the article treats Robert Brown's M as Hargreaves. The films never confirmed it.  The article merely states what scholars think.  I personally think that Brown was playing Lee's character Messervy as there is nothing in the films to indicate otherwise (Bond was played by multiple actors, and some actors have played multiple characters).  Unlike Judi Dench's M, nothing stated by the characters indicates that Brown's M is a separate character, not to mention that in the novels Messervy Served as M until retiring the in the 90s, allowed Dench's M (Barbara Mawdsley) to be promoted.  I'll make some minor edits to keep it neutral.  Emperor001 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I personally think..." So you'd like to change the information offered by numerous secondary sources to something more in line with your POV, is that right? ;) - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was making it Non-POV by saying possibly. No where do the producers say that Brown's M was a different character from Lee's.  I've never even heard of those secondary sources and I would like to see their reasons for believing they way they do.  Emperor001 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also just realized a primary source that proves that Brown's M is not Hargreaves: John Gardner's novelization to Licence to Kill.  In this novelization, Gardner maintained the same M from previous novels (Messervy) despite being played by Brown in the films.  Gardner was not instructed by anyone that Brown's M was a new character, otherwise he may very well have incorporated it into his novels (even though the novels and films run on different continuities, the continuation authors have tried somewhat to keep in line with recent films, such as with the novelizations).  When Dench became M, Gardner incorporated that into his novels by saying at the end of Cold that Messervy was retiring and that a woman was taking his place, which happened in the novelization to GoldenEye.  Emperor001 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to believe that you've "never even heard of those secondary sources": Cork's James Bond encyclopedia is an Eon-approved work, for a start, while Rubin has written a number of Bond-related books. As to your point regarding the novelization, if you can find a reliable secondary source that says so, please include it. It would also be preferable if you could find a secondary source to back up the Vice Admiral rank, although I'll have a check through my sources later to see what they say. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I think I might have seen those source in bookstores, but I never paid attention to them. For another secondary source, I just skimmed the DVD commentaries and none of the directors, producers, or Roger Moore said anything that remotely implied that Brown's M was Hargreaves.  All Moore said was that "Bob later popped up as M." (Spy who Loved Me commentary) and "There's Robert Brown again, I suggested he play the part." (Ocotpussy commentary).  Why would I need a secondary source for the Vice Admiral Rank when we've got a PRIMARY source, the novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  The novel clearly states, "M's naval pay (as a Vice-Admiral on the retired list) would add perhaps another 1,500 pounds."  Since the novel by Ian Fleming says that M was a Vice Admiral (at least in the novels, in the films, M's uniform shows him to be a Rear Admiral; some people have previously used this as proof that Hargreaves was not M, since in the Spy who Loved me, Hargreaves wore a Vice Admiral's rank, but in The Living Daylights, he wore a Rear Admiral's rank insignia).  Emperor001 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason for asking for the secondary source is that over the last 15 months we've tried, wherever possible, to back up all relevant information with secondary sources on the Bond articles, which ensures that it avoids falling into the pitfalls of fancruft etc. I've managed to find a back-up to the Vice Admiral rank and cited it accordingly. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't make sense. When it comes to fiction, primary sources (the novels, films, and statements from the authors and film-makers) are more reliable to secondary sources.  Why not just cite the novel itself?  If you'd have asked I could have cited the chapter and page number of that quote from the novel and even which printing it is.  A novel is not fancrust (unless you consider the author a fan of his own work).  Emperor001 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As can I—p. 240 in my edition: the Christmas lunch at Quarterdeck. Actually, the primary sources are not always the best place, and certainly not the most reliable. For example: where was Dr. Watson wounded in the Sherlock Holmes stories? Depends which one as Conan Doyle cocked up and said it was in his shoulder in one story and his leg in another. In most cases the stuff that's important in a novel will have been covered in at least one secondary source. Primary sources can be used, but only sparingly, especially if a secondary source can be used to back up something that is in the primary. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well let me explain my view for a moment. When I was an undergrad, I was a history major, and all of our papers had to focus on primary sources.  All a secondary source (like Wikipedia itself) is is an analysis of primary sources.  All of my professors said to primarily use primary sources (no pun intended) and that secondary sources were just to give yourself a general background on a topic or perhaps to supplement your work, such as getting other historians' takes on certain events, since different historians will interpret evidence differently (and the same can be said for fiction; in this case some people assumed that b/c Brown started playing M, Hargreaves was the new M, but others, citing how usually in movies a new actor does not mean a new character, believe that Brown simply took over Lee's M entirely).  In your Sherlock Holmes example, if I wanted to know where Dr. Watson was wounded, I would check the stories, and it looks like in your example he was apparently wounded more than once, or Doyle just forgot about where he had Watson wounded.  Now in instances when an author might goof and make a continuity error, then you accept it as that, an error on the author's part, and secondary sources may speculate as to which is correct, or perhaps attempt to reconcile discrepancies.  For example, Ian Fleming was inconsistent with Bond's year of birth.  In Moonraker, he gave the implication that Bond was born circa 1917 (the 3rd person omniscient view stated that Bond was 8 years away from the mandatory retirement age of 45, and a footnote in the novel says that the evens of the novel took place in 1954, placing his DOB around 1917), but then in You Only Live Twice it was implied that he was born in 1924 (Tanaka said he was born in the year of the rat, and M said in Bond's obituary that in 1941 he joined the RN at age 17, claiming to be 19).  In this case I would defer to the Moonraker date as the statement came from the omniscient 3rd person view rather than from characters in the book itself who could be mistaken, lie, or be lied to, but my analysis of this is a secondary source.  You can quote me if you wish, but I would recommend going to the novels to see for yourself.  Secondary sources are often wrong themselves.  The official James Bond bio that came out in the 1970s for example gave Bonds birth year as 1920 (something later accepted by Young Bond author Charlie Higson), but there is nothing in the Fleming novels to suggest that year.  Emperor001 (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, that's all very interesting, but this isn't an undergraduate degree, this is Wikipedia. Please see WP:SOURCE for an explanation of why secondary sources are, for the most part, more reliable than primary sources in most cases, and your date of birth point should ring alarm bells with you towards reliance on the primary source. (I am, of course, entirely au fait with the dates—see the section I wrote at James Bond (literary character) for a more detailed look—and one that manages to avoid fancruft). I would add that I would not "defer" to any of the variants of birth year: Fleming wasn't clear and the secondary sources all differ, so that's what the article says; to do otherwise—to "defer" to any of the dates in preference to the others is nothing more than WP:POV. Furthermore, your maths around his DoB strays into WP:OR, and it's certainly not needed when so many secondary sources have a point. In the case of Brown's M, no WP:POV has been taken: the secondary sources have been referred to where there is a lack of clarity in the films. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will concede this argument. I was unaware of the WP policy regarding primary sources.  As I've said before, as a student I am used to primary sources and wrote as such.  I will obey this policy and will keep my interpretations out until such a time as I find a source out that backs it up.  Emperor001 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. The sourcing is one of the key areas of Wiki, especially where things are likely to be challenged, or where there is some analysis required. The Bond project has worked hard recently to try and remove much of the information that does not have secondary sources wherever possible—it makes it much more stable and less prone to in-universe writing and fans bickering over the minutiae. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I recently added some edits on another article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_James_Bond_novels_and_films, would you care to see if your secondary sources can back them up as well. I used primary sources (the novels and films, though I didn't do an in cite notation) for these, but I only made plain statements of fact as allowed by WP:Source.  Emperor001 (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

M's name is "Emma"?
I'd dispute this one.

Bond introduces her as just "M". Kincaid calls her Emma, but nobody else does and she was not introduced as such. As the audience one is forced to assume that Kincaid took "M" as being short for Emma.

Neither Bond nor M correct Kincaid, but they can't - they'd have to explain why she's called "M" if her name's not "Emma" and Kincaid doesn't know what Bond does for a living.

Yeah - M's name is not 'Emma'. Kincaid thought Bond was saying 'Em' - which he took to be a shortened version of 'Emma'.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.189.87 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

However, it is implied in Casino Royale that at least Judy Dench's incarnation has a name beginning with M: James Bond: I thought "M" was a randomly assigned letter, I had no idea it stood for... M: (interrupting) Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

SPOILER DISCLAIMER NEEDED
Spoiler Disclaimer is needed at the beginning of the page as it reveals a key part of the movie for viewers who may be looking this information up prior to going to the movie to see it. My sister was incredibly upset when she saw this as it has ruined the movie watching experience for her.

Samantilles (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SPOILER. Wiki contains spoilers and does not carry spoiler warnings. What else did she expect to see on an article about a film? - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

M I who I say I M?
It is somewhat ridiculous to debate whether the "Robert Brown M" is or is not the same person as the "Bernard Lee M". Does one argue that the "Roger Moore Bond" is a different character from the "George Lazenby Bond" (his Australian cousin, perhaps?) In other words, one should not confuse the role/charcter with the actor portraying that role. There is little or no contextual evidence in the film to support the assertion that M is two different people in those films from Dr. No through Licence to Kill. By contrast, it is shown in the films that the "Dench M" is a different person. She refers to her "predecessor" and Bond is expected to know of whom she speaks--his former boss.
 * Amen. Rule of thumb:  if a person is played by two different actors, it's the same person unless otherwise stated.  Emperor001 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Amen, Amen! Another rule of thumb:  an actor can often show up within the series as two different characters.  I'll get to that in a minute.  But, I would further make these points, by way of arguing against the assertion that the Robert Brown "M" is different from the Bernard Lee "M".  First, Brown has a basically similar appearance to Lee -- same-ish age and build, balding -- it seems like the producers would have taken pains to make him look different, if not establish outright that he IS different.  Secondly, although Raymond Benson is quoting as being unhappy with Brown's performance and/or the way the part was written, Benson never states or even implies that he believes this is a different "M".  In fact, in The James Bond Bedside Companion he says, "M is portrayed by a new actor, Robert Brown...," not 'There is a new M, who is portrayed by Robert Brown'.  He goes on to say, "Brown is an adequate replacement in the role".  'The role' being the operative phrase, as if it is the same character and not merely the same functionary; and, in fact, when discussing how underwritten the part is, Benson starts by saying "Once again..." signifying that this is a complaint he had at some point when Bernard Lee was in the role.  A third point to make, and this is rather esoteric is that when Hargreaves appears in The Spy Who Loved Me, he is indeed an Admiral, but it is never said that he has anything to do with the Intelligence Service.  Surely, the service, if it were to promote another Admiral to the role of M would promote from within the Service.  It's stated in GoldenEye that Judi Dench's M is seen as a bean-counting bureaucrat and is indeed derided as such.  This would imply that this is something new to the 'modern' Secret Service.  Another sort of obscure argument can be found in the Scottish castle in The World Is Not Enough -- if they are indeed two different "M"s, then why doesn't Brown's "M" get his own portrait?  The fact that only Lee is shown tells me that they consider the two actors to have played one person and that Lee is the face that they wish to be the face of the character.  Granted, one could argue that the fact that Brown is not represented doesn't mean much, but if they were paying tribute to former "M"s, why not include this other "M"?  If nothing else, it would allow the producers a chance to disabuse many of us of the notion that the two actors are playing the same person.  One other perhaps silly point is that it's stated in Casino Royale that "M" is not just a randomly assigned letter but in fact stands for something, like it did with Admiral Sir Miles Messervy, and like it does in Skyfall with Mallory; so, why then, would Hargreaves not be called "H"?  One final, and utterly esoteric point against this assertion is, given that the Bond series employs multiple actors to play one part (Blofeld, Felix Leiter, Bond himself) and given that the series often employs one actor to play multiple roles throughout the series (like Charles Gray, Maud Adams, Walter Gotell, Shane Rimmer, and even Michael G. Wilson), is it not also possible that Robert Brown might be playing a different "M" who is NEITHER Admiral Sir Miles Messervy NOR Admiral Hargreaves, but a third man altogether?  Oh, God, that's another can of worms... (Nedclubned (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC))


 * Firstly M is a title, not a name, it is therefore possible for it to be four different people - Messervy, Hargreaves, "Dench's character" and Mallory. Secondly, all you have written is possible, but without adequate reliable independent sources it is utterly worthless. The text we have in the article uses the reliable sources to back up what is written, but we also raise the point of uncertainty of identification, which is more than sufficient to cover all the points we need to. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, "Q" is a title, or at least a shortening of "Quartermaster", whereas "M" is never stated to be a title, and is in fact implied in both the books "Moonraker" and "The Man With the Golden Gun" to be an initial. This is further reinforced in the movie Casino Royale (2005), and I would argue that it is reinforced in Skyfall by the name "Mallory", and even in the 1967 Casino Royale with the name McTavish.  As for the worthlessness of what I've written, I'm really not sure what is more reliable than the movies themselves, which is what I've cited.  Moreover, I more correctly cited Raymond Benson's writing than is contained in the article, since I actually state the book from which it came, and directly quoted as such.  I'm sorry that my format is not as 'ship-shape' as you would wish, but this is why I put it in this section and didn't try to edit the actual article.  I would also add that the article is written in such a way as to unequivocally state that the Robert Brown "M" is Admiral Hargreaves and doesn't even suggest that this could not be the case. (Nedclubned (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC))


 * It's stated as a title in the books, not the films. This article is about both, but the books take precedence as the source. It's also further reinforced by history of those who formed the intelligence organisations in Britain in the early 20th century, such as Maxwell Knight, head of MI5, who signed his memos as "M" and Mansfield Smith-Cumming, who would sign his initial "C". Their practice continued certainly until Stella Rimmington's time, as she continued to sign official correspondence with a C. While the films do act in some cases as the source, in order to avoid the annoyance of WP:Fancruft, the use of reliable, independent sources for information is a necessity. We also use more than just one source, which is why a list of names appear to support Brown being a new appointment to the role, rather than Messervy. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just completed reading the books, again, and nowhere have I seen that "M" is a "title". What would it stand for?  He's not  Minister of anything?  But setting that aside, this discussion is about the film character and not the book character, despite the fact that my original arguments are framed using the books and the movies.  The film character is called "Miles", by the way, by Gen. Gogol in The Spy Who Loved Me.  But your point is taken about Maxwell Knight and Smith-Cumming -- both of which use their OWN initial to sign documents.  Your point is further made that "C" became something of a title of Stella Rimmington, though I have no way of knowing this.  Still, as the film series has taken pains to reinforce the "M" as initial notion, why, then would it veer from this when Brown took over the role.  Further, all of the cinematic "M"s have taken pains to mention their predecessors, even -- as you point out -- Bernard Lee.  Why, then, does Brown's "M" not do the same?  Still, all I'm really trying to do is talk about this idea and perhaps suggest that the article might do a better job of leaving the door open.  I see a lot of authors being cited, and I suppose I'll need to look into their writings to see how they argue their points, but all we really have is their word for it.  And although, my argument might not be put in the bibliography-ed, notated way in which you would prefer, I believe my thoughts have been well-enough stated and examples from the movies in particular fully-enough exampled.  Nevertheless, this is all speculation and I'm not sure it's entirely fair to call my points 'worthless' simply because I didn't cite some film review of a movie rather than just citing the movie itself.  If you want, I can add timecode notations for when Charles Gray appears as Henderson in You Only Live Twice and then again when he appears as Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever, and likewise, when Donald Pleasance and Telly Savalas and Charles Gray each appear as Blofeld, but it would neither prove nor argue against my point if I were to do so.  The fact remains that at least one actor, but actually several, appears in the series playing more than one personage, and also several actors can appear as the same personage.  There is NO definitive proof within the movies to state that Robert Brown's "M" is Hargreaves any more than there's proof that Brown is playing Messervy or a third personage.  Therefore, I think the article should reflect that.  At the very least, I think the argument is worth inclusion on a 'Talk' page.  (Nedclubned (talk))  —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * TV Tropes lists the casting of Brown, first as a "Suspiciously Similar Substitute", ie, a new character who comes in, but is written very similarly to the character he's replacing so as not to have to re-tool what has been written for the original character. However, they allow that the casting could be an example of "The Other Darrin", wherein a new actor is hired to replace another actor in the same series.  The argument that "M" is the promoted Admiral Hargreaves is listed as a third option, but is seen as unlikely, seeing as Hargreaves is a Vice Admiral in The Spy Who Loved Me, but "M" is stated as being a Rear Admiral in The Living Daylights.  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Octopussy?from=Main.Octopussy  (Nedclubned (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC))


 * "The Bond Film Informant" website also posits that Brown is playing the Messervy "M", while the idea that "M" is Hargreaves is seen as an interesting alternate idea. The site goes on to state, there is little evidence to argue either way, but that the press material for Octopussy suggests that Brown is playing the same person whom Lee had played, and not merely the same position in the Service.  The site goes on to assert the idea that "M" is an initial of the person in the job by asserting that Judi Dench's "M" is the same "Barbara Mawdsley" as is found in Raymond Benson's novel "Faced of Death" and that both Benson and Gardner have Miles Messervy as the only "M" until he is replaced by a woman. (http://www.mjnewton.demon.co.uk/bond/mult_m.htm)  I don't argue that these authors' novels carry the weight of canon like the Fleming novels do, but at least the idea that the books and movies have, however conveniently, clung to the notion that "M" would be a consistent initial among the various "M"s is reinforced.  (Nedclubned (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC))


 * The first is a Wiki-style page, which the general public can edit, the second is a fansite. They both fail WP:RELIABLE. - SchroCat (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So, then, does Raymond Benson's "The James Bond Bedside Companion" fail WP:Reliable? At any rate, the reason I mention these is not to offer definitive proof, but to show that the idea is out there and is viable.  Truthfully, I think this Hargreaves as M business was only really brought up with the advent of the internet, and subsequent over-analyzation of pop culture.  When we all went to see Octopussy in the theaters in 1983, we took it for granted that it was the same M as before, but played by a new actor.  The Hargreaves and/or another guy idea was just an amusing fringe thought that I started to come across from time to time, but I know that this point holds no "weight' as a definitive statement.  At any rate, I don't believe that any of the three options for whom Robert Brown is playing is really any more valid than the next.  But I see that you stopped researching when you found what you wanted to write and now you're holding WP:Reliable and WP:Weight over the head of anyone who tries to offer argument, and thus over anyone who wants to look up the character of "M" on wikidpedia. I'll start researching, though, and maybe find some review where the reviewer thinks that it's the same "M", and maybe you'll assign weight and reliability to that.

The reason I didn't include Benson is because he is not clear on the point. Benson wrote "M is portrayed by a new actor, Robert Brown ...an adequate replacement in the role". There is no clarity in whether Benson considers Brown to be a new Messervy, or Hargreaves promoted, or a different character altogether. His words can be interpreted in different ways, so he was left out. He doesn't fail reliable, he fails clarity. I didn't stop once I found the answer I wanted - it should be blindingly obvious that I kept looking for other sources, which is why the information is backed up by the two different but reliable sources who made themselves clear on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Judi Dench's M - "Discrepencies" between Brosnan and Craig era
I have to say, I've always had an issue with this part of the article:

"Unlike the ambivalence of Brown's M, Dench clearly plays a new person appointed to the position of M (putting to rest a long time debate over the nature of the character), although in Casino Royale (which rebooted the films' continuity) she states that she worked in MI6 as far back as the Cold War. "

Um... so what? Yes... she worked at MI6 during the Cold War... that doesn't mean she was M during the cold war. It's not like she would have just been a civilian before been appointed to the position of M, of course she would have had a long history in intellegnce or the military before that. Plus, it isn't even stated that she worked at MI6 during the Cold War, just that she worked in the intellegnce community in some capacity. While the Brosnan and Craig films obviously exist in a different universe, I still don't think there's any reason why Judi Dench's M isn't the same character in both universes, and was still appointed M sometime in 1994/1995 in Craig's universe. I'm hesitant to delete it outright, but at the same time I don't think it's notable enough to be in the article. Cyclone49 (talk)
 * Screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have explicitly stated that "Judi Dench is the same actress playing a different role- called M" in Casino Royale. See http://www.hmss.com/films/CasinoRoyale/interview/ Nick xylas (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she just says that she "misses the Cold War", which doesn't necessarily say that she was at MI6 at that time, although she probably was. Still, "M" in GoldenEye says that she considers Bond to be a "relic of the Cold War". So the two Dench "M"s clearly have different views about that period in history. Also, the Brosnan "M" is called "the Evil Queen of Numbers", who in The World Is Not Enough is said to be a lawyer, and generally seems to have come from outside the service, whereas the Craig "M" does seem to be more of an Intelligence Community insider. As it's stated, the pre-Craig and post-Craig Bonds obviously exist in different 'universes' -- Casino Royale is a reboot, not a prequel -- so I would assert that the two Judi Dench "M"s could even be the same 'person', but be alternate reality versions of the same person, just as the Craig Bond is an alternate reality version of the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond. (Nedclubned (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC))

Judi Dench / etc
I'm a bt peeved about this reversion - as I state in edit summary, "M*** M******" is not a set of initials - MM would be the initials, and lacking any specific word for what "M**** M*******" is, I think my edit is perfectly justified. As for Judi Dench, if it's notable she this M has children and that other Ms have family, it's notable that her M is married and that her husband died. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really - your version was a truly horrible mess. The current version is not only still correct (the only identifying aspect is the initials, rather than anything else) and has the advantage of being supported by the citation and the version that Fleming used in the novel. As to Dench, your edit needs to carry a reference - this article avoids primary references (or the unencyclopaedic "implicit references") wherever possible as they are the bastions of fancruft, WP:OR and arguments (and articles should never, ever, ever carry the word "presumably": he either is or isn't and the film does not make it clear). Everything else here carries a suitable citation and there is no reason why this should be different. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I seriously cannot understand why the world "presumably" cannot be used. I see that, as an authoritative writing, the article cannot presume, per se, but in this case, the presumption is in the mind of nearly every person who saw the movie.  Is there a way of including that information while still allowing that a viewer might assume it's her husband; especially now that we know that she did have a husband before the events of Skyfall?  Also, I don't think the word "denouement" is correct, here.  M dies in the climax of the film, that is to say at the end of the climactic battle.  The new M is introduced, along with the new Moneypenny, in the denouement of the film.  (Nedclubned (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC))


 * Because "presumably" is among the least encyclopaedic words available. "Presumably" means you are making a connection between two things you have seen for which there are plausibly alternative explanations. How do you know it's her husband? She could have been having an affair (a case of art mirroring life?), or was this a relationship after her husband's death? No-one knows, so "presumably" is essentially WP:OR: you've put your spin on two short scenes in two films and drawn an unsupportable conclusion. It's nothing but bloody awful fancruft, which is why nothing goes in unless it's supported by sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ms last appearance in Skyfall?
Why does it say that Skyfall is the final appearance of M? The character will be in the next film as we have a new M played by Ralph Fiennes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.132.166 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure it does say that, does it? I can see it says Dench's character dies, which is correct, but that's not the same thing. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it says at the top of the page "last appearance: Skyfall." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.132.166 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's because it is the last appearance to date. Before Skyfall was released it said Quantum of Solace; when the next one comes out it will have that title in there. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I can understand how some would find that very misleading. Just to give an example the page for the Doctor Who/Torchwood character "Jack Harkness" it does not give his last appearance because he has not had his final appearance yet. Neither has the character of M, so the "last appearance: Skyfall" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.133.209 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting thought, but on balance the title of the film where they last appeared is suitable and certainly fits within the guidelines for the relevant field information. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be two different ones? Because if it was a characters final appearance just say 'last', which you've got to confess it does mostly imply the last one. And the other one could be 'latest'. Charlr6 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there's no field for latest. Either way, it's a bit crystal ball gazing to say that there will definately be another film. Anthing could happen that would stop the series, or mean that M is not involved and we would have an incorrect entry. The last film M was in was Skyfall: that's entirely true. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been announced there will be more movies, and I doubt any of us would really think that in like two months times it would turn out that there is never going to be another Bond film after Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli decide its enough.
 * I've only just realised this, but there isn't actually a page for James Bond for the film version of Bond is there? It is just literacy, and I've checked the page and it is mostly about the character in the book, and the 'last appearance' there says "Carte Blanche". Charlr6 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Very true on the planned next film, but there was an announcement of Dalton's third film, which never happened too (unforseen legal issues). No one foresaw MGM almost going bankrupt (thus the gap between QoS and Skyfall, which saw the series nearly disappear again. Things happen: no one can be certain there will be another film, or that it will contain M.
 * There is a film character article ready to go live, but I need to revamp one of the other articles before I launch it to ensure it survives scrutiny (I tried to do it before, but someone had it deleted saying there was already an article that covered it - they got it seriously wrong: they were too blind to see what was in front of them and too arrogant to back down later on). I'm hoping to get it launched in the next couple of weeks... watch this space! - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * James Bond wasn't really at a high point with Dalton's films. Were received better critically, but not at the box office sadly.
 * Thats good about the film character article. I only just thought "why isn't there one?". And if anyone thinks that the literacy article covers mostly everything then they are too blind. Haha. But I look forward to seeing it. Charlr6 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Full name of M
It should be noted somewhere that the new M in Skyfall is the only screen M for whom a full name has been revealed. The Bernard Lee M was only ever once referred to as "Miles"; his last name was only revealed in the novels. And assuming the Robert Brown M is indeed Hargreaves (some aspects of fandom believe Brown to be playing the same man as Bernard Lee), we've never learned Hargreaves' first name. And we never heard either a first nor last name on screen for the Dench M, not even in Skyfall (I believe Raymond Benson gave her a name, but that's not the same as uttering it on screen). 70.72.211.35 (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable secondary source to support it, and you consider it passes WP:WEIGHT and WP:FANCRUFT, then it is should certainly be considered. - SchroCat (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently Mallory calls Dench's M "Eleanor" in the film but I didn't catch that when watching it earlier today. Someone should verify that. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That quote was in the movie. It's on IMDB and I caught it when I saw that scene. Mallory says something like, "Eleanor, you should retire with your dignity", to which M replies, "To Hell with dignity, I'll retire when the job's done!" 98.228.231.176 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * She's called M by Mallory, not Eleanor. IMDB isn't a reliable source as it's filled in by other people who didn't hear things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed about IMDB's reliability so far as quotes go. I've seen some wrong ones. Plus I don't remember M being called 'Eleanor' though it is possible it did happen....William 19:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Club membership
Isn't it possible that M is simply quite wealthy (through inheritance maybe?) and works because he wants to rather than out of necessity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Entirely possible, but Fleming doesn't cover that so we can't. What we have covered is the membership question that was raised by one of the reliable sources, who also didn't speculate on the possibility that M was independently wealthy but worked out of a sense of duty. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Mommy/Mummy
To IP:121.223.36.187, please don't revert again without discussing it here first and gaining a consensus. (See WP:BRD, which explains that after you make a Bold edit that someone Reverts, you Discuss on the talk page, you don't revert again). Regarding the substantive parts of your edit. Firtly, M is shot and killed. We do not say that she dies instantly, and this article does not need the whole plot spelled out here, as it is all written out in the Skyfall article for people to read. Secondly, please watch the film and pay attention to what Bardem says. He doesn't say "Mummy", he says the American form "Mommy". Although the rest of the article is written in British English, this diversion into Americanese is justified because it is what Bardem actually says. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with SchroCat. He clearly says "Mommy". - Fantr (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Almost all the Ms are affiliated with "MI6" (except for the first, who is also MI7) and the characters are located right under "Films", so I'm not sure how useful the infoboxes are in helping describe the character. It just seems a bit redundant and takes up needless space. I don't think we'd lose much simply replacing them with captions like "Admiral Sir Miles Messervy, as portrayed by Bernard Lee". I'm fine with the main infobox, of course.

Generally articles only tend to have one infobox too, looking around at general characters articles. I can't name any specific GAs with multiple infoboxes, though there's probably some around; but they're definitely in the minority. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to lose them either. We don't have to worry about space, or about what other GAs are or are not doing, just about this article. Although I question the use idiotboxes in most cases, in this instance I find the highlighting of fields helpful, rather than losing details within the captions of images. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Olivia Mansfield
Can this be credit as M's name? Jonesy702 (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd rather defer to about this. I'm not sure comingsoon.net counts as a reliable source, but I have seen the still in question on a website and yes, the bulldog box clearly says "Olivia Mansfield bequeaths James Bond". - Fantr (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But we don't have any confirmation that "Olivia Mansfield" is actually M's name. Dialgoue in Casino Royale implies that her name is a closely-guarded secret, so it's entirely plausible that her will was read under a pseudonym to protect her identity even in death. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been confirmed by Eon Productions: "We’ve searched around and as far as we can see this is the first and only time anyone’s ever revealed M’s real name. It may not have been spoken, but if you were watching on a big enough screen it could have been visible, so we’d argue it’s now canon." [] I'd say that's pretty conclusive. Prioryman (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done for ignoring silly things like WP:BRD, or bothering to search for a source that's more reliable. Good work! - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the DM has a questionable reputation for news reporting, but we should treat it on a case-by-case basis. In this case the journalist has evidently called Eon and got a quote from them. What do you expect other sources to do? Call Eon themselves and get the same quote? I can't see anyone wanting to do that - it would be a waste of effort, as the DM's already done it, and would add nothing to any story. It's not a contentious topic and there's no particular reason to suppose that the quote is inaccurate, fabricated or misrepresented. Blindly reverting on the grounds that "it's the DM" is not a sensible thing to do in such a situation. Prioryman (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * EON didn't confirm anything. The Daily Mail stole the quote from that blog that posted the information two months ago. EON never made that quote. The blog writer did. --68.45.60.81 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent work 68.45.60.81. DM did indeed steal the quote. Therefore the name has no place in the article. - Fantr (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that. I agree that it's unsuitable for inclusion. Incidentally, there is an interesting report in today's New York Times that mentions the DM's practice of stealing content, which seems to be endemic: . Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's one of the things that makes them (nearly) inherently unreliable as a source. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I amended this article with Olivia Mansfield's name without seeing this talk page. Should have checked first and the reversion was correct. That said, in this article from The Metro, http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/07/james-bond-fan-uncovers-ms-real-name-from-skyfall-scene-3714729/, Meg Simmons, archive director for Bond production company Eon, said: ‘We’ve searched around and as far as we can see this is the first and only time anyone’s ever revealed M’s real name. ‘It may not have been spoken, but if you were watching on a big enough screen it could have been visible, so we’d argue it’s now canon.’

That seems to be a verifiable quote from the horse's mouth so I will reinstate "Olivia Mansfield" as the name of the character in a few days unless someone can suggest a reason why not. Hope that helps! A bright cold day in april (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Metro is owned by the Daily Mail, so it's from the same source: the unreliable blog site. It's not been verified by any reliable source or by any additional (and proper) journalism, just the same lazy-arsed cut and paste merchants. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So if we were to find the same quote or, better still, another quote from the same person but verified by a reliable source, then it would be okay? I appreciate that a fan blog doesn't seem to be accepted as a reliable source by Wikipedia but it seems a shame in this case as the quote from Meg Simmonds seems genuine.A bright cold day in april (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If we find the same quote, then someone else will just have done the same cut and paste job. If we find a different quote from Eon (or Dench, Craig etc), or if the character is referred to by name in the next film, then that can be used. As the original quote originally from a fan blog with nothing else done to verify the information or the source, we have no idea if Simmonds was contacted, or (if she was) then whether she was quoted accurately etc. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but what a load of rubbish. Newspapers are not allowed to make up quotes. They can beef out stories and elaborate them but they aren't allowed to make up quotes. Also The Times reported it. Different newspaper. Different company. A trustworthy source. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film/article3757021.ece They will have found and checked their sources. So i think to deny its canon when Eon themselves haven't is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.11.30 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am completely baffled as to how something which actually appears on-screen during Skyfall can be disputed for its canonicity. Her name as Olivia Mansfield is right there on the screen in the film itself. What difference does it make whether someone says it out loud or not? Bumbaze (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot, and the consensus is against inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Implausible detail
Gareth Mallory had served "in Northern Ireland with the Special Air Service during the Troubles, where he had been held hostage by the Irish Republican Army for three months." Which is either a reminder that we are in a world of fiction, or (perish the thought) where people don't know their own history. The PIRA did many things to the SAS; holding one hostage was not one of them. Fergananim (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't recall "Skyfall" saying Mallory was SAS or that it mentioned "the Troubles" by name. My recollection was that Mallory was held prisoner by the IRA but it said he was a Lt-Col in some (fictional) county regiment. The "Independent" reviewer may be wrong. Worth keeping an ear open next time it's on TV. Paulturtle (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the reviewer for The Independent is correct: Mallory's SAS background is mentioned in the film. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * When Moneypenny comes to Bond and shaves him, she mentions that Mallory was a Lt-Col in the "Hereford Regiment" and spent 3 months at the hands of the IRA (approx. 55 mins in). I've just watched all the Mallory scenes and can't find any mention of the SAS. At what point do you reckon his SAS background mentioned? The SAS are indeed based at Hereford but are not, to my knowledge, referred to as "the Hereford Regiment". So it may be that the Independent Reviewer jumped to conclusions in his mind, or the scriptwriter intended people to jump to that conclusion (for which a source would be needed) or it is mentioned and I missed it.Paulturtle (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Miles

 * Bernard Lee's "M" is addressed as "Miles" by General Gogol when they do their little "after you" routine. I think it's in "The Spy Who Loved Me". Again, I'll leave it to others to suggest how that ought to be included.Paulturtle (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Hargreaves "M"
On another note, Hargreaves in "The Spy Who Loved Me" (on ITV4 as I write this) is a Vice-Admiral, whereas Robert Brown's "M" is a Rear-Admiral in the opening scene of "The Living Daylights" where the three 00s parachute out onto Gibraltar. This perhaps casts doubt on the theory that they are one and the same person. I'll leave it to others to suggest how to incorporate that into the article.Paulturtle (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He could perhaps have been an acting vice-admiral while serving as Flag Officer Submarines, then reverted to his substantive rank of rear-admiral on relinquishing the post. Unusual but not impossible. However, the article currently says that "Bond scholars Steven Jay Rubin, John Cork, and Collin Stutz all consider Admiral Hargreaves would have been promoted to the role of M, rather than Brown playing a different character as M" (my emphasis). Do these sources actually use the word "promoted"? Historically, secondment from the Armed Forces to SIS was not regarded as a career-advancing move, and in the short story "For Your Eyes Only" Fleming states that M "had thrown up the certain prospect of becoming Fifth Sea Lord in order to take over the Secret Service". Opera hat (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think changing the wording to "appointed to the role of M" would be better. you added these words back in 2012 and presumably have access to the sources you cited. Would you object to this change? Opera hat (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not impossible, I grant you (the thought had occurred to me as a logical possibility), although somewhat unlikely in peacetime - one man's promotion isn't going to make much impact on the defence budget, unlike the acting promotion of tens of thousands of officers in wartime. Ultimately, the text is the text, whatever the intention of the writer (unless mistake can be shown), and the fact is that Robert Brown's "M" holds a lower rank than Admiral Hargreaves, even if our Bond scholars probably didn't notice (and in fairness I didn't notice until this week, and I've been watching these films for 30 years). I dare say becoming Head of MI6/SIS is a much more prestigious job nowadays than it was before 1945, when Fleming's world view was formed. What does one have to do to become a "Bond scholar", apart from watching the films, ringing up a few veterans of the series for interviews, and writing some text to fit around the photos in the book one publishes? Who supervises one's PhD, for example?Paulturtle (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have the sources to hand, but "appointed" would be OK with me, and I've tweaked it as such. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Lee's M is also, for what it's worth, shown wearing the shoulder boards of a Rear Admiral in "You Only Live Twice". I'm not sure it's ever specifically stated that the second M is supposed o be a different person from the first one.Paulturtle (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M (James Bond). 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/20120514082010/http://uk.gamespot.com/from-russia-with-love/techinfo/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/from-russia-with-love/techinfo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130124522/http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/casino-royale-v8522 to http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/casino-royale-v8522

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) 04:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)