Talk:Ian Fleming

Sanitisation

For a featured article, which by definition represents the very pinnacle of thoroughness and exhaustive effort, there is literally nothing mentioned about Fleming's sexual predilections (though I note with great interest the epic battles being fought over the placing of full stops). Is this article being deliberately sanitised?

Nationality

Born in England to a Scottish father, Fleming was raised to, and indeed did, identify himself as Scottish. (See here: https://lecercleclub.com/2012/12/20/the-playboy-interview-ian-fleming-december-1964/). Perhaps avoid controversy and describe him as British rather than English? Tom (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure.

(1) The Playboy interview contains one reference to Scotland, a throwaway joke that is clearly not meant to be construed as a serious claim to identity. The introduction, on the other hand, refers to Fleming as "an Englishman" ... twice.

(2) Fleming's father was really only half-Scottish, and even that only in terms of heritage. Fleming's paternal grandfather was a Scotsman from Dundee but his paternal grandmother was from England. The father was educated in England, spent most of his time in England, served in an English cavalry regiment, and was an MP for an English constituency.

(3) Modern introductions to Bond novels do not seem to mention Scotland at all. They mention Fleming's English place of birth and his English education. From the 2012 Vintage Books edition of Goldfinger, for example: "Ian Lancaster Fleming was born in London on 28 May 1908 and was educated at Eton College before spending a formative period studying languages in Europe." Some introductions stress his specifically English (not British) outlook and the specifically English (not British) nature of his chauvinism. The 2012 Vintage Books edition of Live and Let Die for example points out that Fleming saw the world "as it appeared to a privileged upper-middle-class Englishman with a complete lack of self-doubt."

I'd say there's no strong reason to drag Scotland into this. Kramler (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Fleming's fiancee

The article refers to "Monique Panchaud de Bottomes," to whom Fleming was briefly engaged in 1931. This may be the way it was spelt in the Henry Chancellor book that's cited as a source, but it's wrong nonetheless. Her name was Monique Panchaud de Bottens; she later married George de Mestral, the inventor of hook and loop fasteners. Not a source that can be cited I know, but she's at this family tree website. The correct spelling has been provided to me by her son. Hopefully there's another reliable source that can be located to correct that. BlackCab (TALK) 05:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources that say otherwise. A Google search even shows a letter from her on sale at Christies, and Google Books shows numerous references. A search using Bottens shows free family tree information and nothing reliable (from a very quick spin through the results). - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, though as this website acknowledges, the misspelling was a common error while the Ian Fleming.com website spells it differently again. This Swiss website also spells it as Bottens. What are the "reliable sources" and can you provide a link to the letter please? I can't find that one. I'd put my money on her son's spelling any day, but whether "reliable" sources exist that prove that is another thing. BlackCab (TALK) 06:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The book sources I have, including Andrew Lycett's detailed (and heavily researched) biography of Fleming, and Pearson's; it's also in the Macintyre's book and a few others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the link for the image of the letter? I'm interested in seeing if her surname appears in her own hand. BlackCab (TALK) 06:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No - my mistake, having read it through more closely, it's not from a letter (it's here). What I suggest is that we add a footnote to the article to provide the alternate spelling, using a couple of the sources that are from the more reliable sources (such as the Fleming website). Does that sound like a way round it? - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A footnote is the best that can be done, I agree. The Ian Fleming website has a third spelling entirely, which is almost certainly wrong. Given the information from Monique's son, I know Bottens is correct and Bottomes is incorrect (and the website I linked to gives a plausible explanation of how the confusion arose), but I know of no source that would qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes that gives the correct spelling. My guess is that biographers simply copied each other, as I would have done in the (non-Wiki) project I'm working on had it not been for direct contact with the family. Hopefully by raising the issue here it may flush out someone who has a more reliable source. BlackCab (TALK) 07:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Right, a slight U-turn on my part. Looking for a good source for the footnote, not only did I find one (Sunday Telegraph), I also found a tweet from Andrew Lycett saying he was glad they spelled the name correctly. On that basis I've put Bottens in the body and Bottomes in the footnote, which keeps us within the bounds of good practice, and should keep her son happy that we are using the proper name 'up front', rather than just a footnote. Hope this is OK with you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent outcome. Thanks. BlackCab (TALK) 09:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dilidor, Rather than just continuing to edit war, please could you take note of WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO and actually DISCUSS the point, rather than just try and force changes against what has been the long-standing previous version on no other basis than you'd prefer it done your way? Can you explain why you think your changes are an improvement?

If you want is broken down just exactly why the status quo is better than your version, let's take each change from the first paragraph in order:

The NBSP is there per MOS:NBSP. It may not make a difference on a PC, but may do in the narrow mobile view. Either way, as it's hidden code, there is no need to change it. Why introduce a serial comma? It's not used in the rest of the article, so don't add it because you prefer it. Why unlink spy novels? No need to, so leave it alone. Who came from a wealthy family? In the status quo it is Fleming: in your version it describes Bond. No need to have the surname at the front of the sentence; the status quo reads more smoothly, rather than trying to start each sentence with "Fleming". Again, why the serial comma? Why remove "briefly"? We're showing that he did not spend many years studying, but was at the universities for a short spell. That's what's needed in the first para, and a second moves onto a different aspect of his life. It's pointless to bloat the first paragraph by adding the second, as it loses the impact of what we are talking about. Slightly shortly paragraphs, particularly in the lead, makes the reading experience easier for people.

Now, I've outlined just why the status quo is better than your "improved" version in the first para. You really want me to go through the rest and point out why those are also not improvements? I'll jump through the hoops if you really push me to it, but it'll just be more of the same. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Having laboriously trawled through the subjects talk page and its respective archived sections, i have in no way in any of the supercilious and often extraneous nonsense seen a consensus on as to why the subjects infobox was removed. Rather i have noticed a pattern, in which a limited number of individuals have hoped to sneak their own preferences into the article, often after an agreement had been reached previously to do exactly the opposite. Hoping to seemingly bore their opposition in submission through frequent and persistent reiteration of niche arguments and view points, and often the use of what can be only be described as underhand tactics, for example the banding together and canvassing of likeminded individuals ( -side note- in effect trying to create an anti infobox movement, a bewildering and in truth embarrassing effort. Those who have been the primary instigators of this have in my findings frequently shown themselves up, through an apparent desire to create some sense of ownership over the subjects article and its goings on. Despite wikipedia being a free and for lack of a better term democratic website, not to mention their frequent use of poor grammar and spelling.) to attempt to create the facade of a dominant opinion on the matter. Wikipedia is in its essence and intent an open and accessible site for the education of the layman, not a place for pseudo-intellectual bickering. An infobox is a clean and sharp way of summarising a number of pieces of basic information, and rather than acting to the detriment of the article and the work that has gone into it, can instead create an interest in the heart of the reader and encourage further research.

An educated and concise response would be appreciated, otherwise i see no reason why an effective and informative (not a lackadaisical or trivial effort) info box should be restored to this article. Kind Regards Grosseteste (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)