Talk:From Russia, with Love (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Split the Article

Do split the article, I think it benifets because when I click From Russia With Love (or any Bond film) It normally starts up the top and the picture is novel and the film is halfway down. Broncopaul 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Each seperate piece of art needs a seperate article. See Revenge of the Sith ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes split it. As should all films be split from the Novels. The films dominate the article's eventhough the each book should have it's own article. The pages become clearer and more inviting to add and work on them, they are to messy now. Allard 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be split, as should all the Bond movies and novels. Many of the movies are loosely based on the novels and are not very similar. Tetzcatlipoca 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The film should be split from the novel just as the other ones are. Wikipedia should be consistent. 7 October 2006

Agree. I surprised this one even needs a vote: all the other Bond movies are in their own seperate articles. Heck, I'll do it the first free moment I get. MI6agent 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I split the article, with film info going to From Russia with Love (film). I can't find any precedent for soundtracks being in separate articles, so I stuck the soundtrack section in the film article. Cheers!--Chaser T 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

CSI: Death of Grant

I checked and he (Grant) is both stabbed in the femoral triangle area and, finally, shot several times with the book gadget. I left "killed" in the main page. Therefore I was wrong about the "stabbed, not shot" part; but, since: he 1.isn't killed instantly and 2. massive hemorrhage is apparent, we (I) can argue that it was the massive hemorrhage that killed Grant, which came both from trauma in the femoral artery (as Bond originally intended) and the gunshots. What did him in, finally, are the shots; nevertheless, the stabbing played a large part in the hemorrhage. To conclude, I think 'killed' is more accurate than simply 'shot' and far more accurate than 'stabbed' (as I mentioned in my original edit). But I think I am nitpicking here... --Haris 18:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Killed is fine. I guess I forgot he was stabbed first, but he wasn't killed until he was shot by the book thing so that's the only reason I reverted. Thanks for clearing this up. K1Bond007 03:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said: I was nitpicking. Sorry for that... old man. --Haris 05:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Book image

At some point one of the book cover images was replaced, but I have reverted this change. Specifically, a low-quality photograph of the 1960 Pan edition replaced a scan of the 1959 Pan edition. I reverted this because at the NovelsWikiProject we're supposed to illustrate the earlier edition if possible, plus the image of the 1959 edition was better in quality than the non-scan that was used for the 1960 edition. We actually have too many editions here so I will remove the 1970 nude cover which I had uploaded back when there were no other editions illustrated. 23skidoo 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Death of Darko Kerim

Darko was not killed by Red Grant, as this article suggests, but rather by the MGB man, Benz. This scenario is depicted at the end of Chapter 23, "Out of Greece." Furthermore, Grant himself states in Chapter 26, "The Killing Bottle" that: 'This Turk of yours had to be got rid of. I gather that took a bit of doing,' indicating that he had no part in the murder. I'm a bit new to this Wikipedia business and thought it more appropriate to bring this correction to attention here. Perhaps someone familiar with protocol, standards, and the like can make the corrections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.6 (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Citation

There is a "citation needed" for the claim that the film version of From Russia With Love is well regarded by critics and fans. I'm new to Wiki, so I don't know if Rotten Tomatoes or the IMDB are acceptable sources, but they show the film as highly rated.

Rotten Tomatoes IMDB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ted 3000 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC).Ted 3000 03:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Organizational structure of "Station T"

I've removed this entire section, since it appears to be nothing but opinion and broad speculation and doesn't even cite whose opinion it is. --Tysto 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Move

I propose that this article be moved to From Russia with Love (novel) to make this article consistent with the majority of the James Bond novel articles. Besides, there's a film and a video game with the same name. Why should this article get the benefit of being just From Russia with Love? Emperor001 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one responds soon, I will move this article. Emperor001 (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FromRussia1959.jpg

Image:FromRussia1959.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frwlpenguin.jpg

Image:Frwlpenguin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RussiaFirst.jpg

Image:RussiaFirst.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This move request has been withdrawn by myself. YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From Russia, with Love (novel) → From Russia, with Love — The book is the only one with that name. See full discussion here. YeshuaDavid (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:From Russia, with Love (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 09:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't miss this one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Strewth (as they say in your part of the world) that was quick! lol - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nearly a month passed by since the quick response.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Good gosh, has it really been that long? My apologies, a lot got in the way but I should have the time for this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Not a problem - been a bit busy myself in the intervening period too, so it's not an issue at all. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Toolbox check -- no dab or EL probs.

Prose/Content -- a few things:

• Need to decide if you're going to repeat links from the lead the first time they appear in main body of the article. For instance you link Soviet counterintelligence in both the lead and the plot but you only link SMERSH in the lead. Personally I treat the infobox, the lead and the main body of the article as separate, i.e. link things in each of those the first time they appear.
  • Heh, I see you did link SMERSH further into the plot section so just leaving the above as a general reminder/observation.
• I'm not sure that Fleming actually refers to the secret service as MI6 anywhere in this novel; if so we should not either.
• Benson also sees Grant as a menacing individual -- although I enjoy Benson's book on Bond, this seems a bit of trite observation and I think should be dropped.
• Not a showstopper by any means but I'd have thought it worth mentioning in passing that FRWL the movie is generally regarded as one of the best -- a couple of citations to that effect should be enough, e.g Benson and one another.

Referencing/Structure/Images -- no issues.

Summary –- nice work as usual, I was particularly pleased to see you work in Benson's "Fleming Sweep", which always struck me as a keen observation; if you can just deal with the minor points above I'll have no prolem passing this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Thanks for the review - and the ongoing copyedits you've undertaken. I've done the above, but used Rotten Tomatoes and the BFI as the reviews. If you want something a little more punchy along the lines of Benson etc, let me know and I can always add them in. - Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate, in retrospect I should've said best film adaptation, to relate it more closely to the subject of this article, i.e. the novel. Since I led you astray I've done the work to replace what you had with something from Benson -- hope it reads okay for you. I am of course ready to pass it if you're done otherwise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK - get where you're coming from now! Much better, with only one minor ce done. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Tks for correcting my typo -- it's appropriate after all your work that you have the last edit before it goes GA... ;-) Passing, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian - a nice review, as always! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so who killed Kerim?

if Grant kills Kerim (making it seem as though Kerim and Benz killed each other), leaves the train and boards it again at Trieste- this could be made a whole lot clearer by including the bit about, well, his leaving the train; otherwise it just seems... erm... at best, muddled. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot

I have recently revised the Plot section and had it reverted with no reason given. It suffered from personal interpretation and several inaccuracies. The most serious was the nonsensical claim that Grant was responsible for faking the deaths of Darko Kerim and the third Soviet agent, of which there is no mention in the novel. Again, it is Kerim alone who identifies that there are three MGB agents on the train; and it wasn't a magazine into which Bond slipped his cigarette case to evade being killed but a book by Eric Ambler. Perhaps User:SchroCat will discuss the reasons for his plot reversions here first before taking such action again. :Mzilikazi1939

Unfortunately for you, SchroCat doesn't have to justify anything. It is you who has to justify why you think your edits are worthy to include in this article, having been reverted. I've read the edits, and the previous version to your's was far better. Cassianto^Talk 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have justified them above and User:Cassianto has not addressed them. They include not just factual errors but also personal interpretation in the passage beginning "Grant yields to the temptation to gloat over the seemingly helpless Bond..." I will add another factual error: Bond does not wake up "to find a gun pointing at him"; there is a device built into the spine of Nash's book of which Bond is not aware until Nash shoots at his watch. If you like I will give page references from the Pan edition. We are talking about matters of fact, not opinions. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the two minor points. The rest of your edits were not good. They introduced extraneous unnecessary details and a couple of weaker grammatical points. As to what Nash points at Bond, it is still a gun, just one disguised as a book. – SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I am amazed at the way User:SchroCat interprets his sense of custodianship of this article. Simply to revert without explanation an edit that gives as its reason that inaccuracies were being corrected seems nearer to WP:OWN than responsible editorship. He has now made two changes to parts pointed out but leaves others. Where in the novel is it stated that it was Grant who killed Kerim and the third agent? Exact wording please. And where does it state that "Bond wakes up to find a gun pointing at him". That is not what the book says. Nor does it say that "Bond pretends to be wounded".

I also take issue with justification of reversion that the new version "introduced extraneous unnecessary details". Chapters 14-20 of the novel, nearly a quarter of its length, encompassing Bond's stay in Istanbul, is written off in a couple of sentences. In particular, there is no explanation of how the killing of Bond will precipitate "a major sex scandal", which was the substance of my addition. It seems to me that the section was and remains sloppily written with a poor knowledge of the book. It is part of an editor's duties to WP:BEBOLD, to clarify points and to correct inaccuracies. Would the self-appointed custodian please make sure this happens instead of hindering those who try to help? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Before I lapse into industrial-strength base Anglo-Saxon, I suggest you knock of the OWNership comments. If you think "waits for him in his hotel bed wearing only a black ribbon round her throat" is in anyway encyclopaedic and not extraneous unnecessary detail, then that's all we need to know about your standards. This is a plot summary, not a blow-by-blow rehashing to titillate 15-year-olds. As to Grant having a gun when Bond wakes up, it's the thing that fires bullets into his watch; as I've put above, it may be disguised as a book, but it is still a gun. – SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

An administrator has suggested we try compromise before we seek third-party opinions. I have made changes in the last but one para which I hope will not be found controversial in line with discussion above. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Given all that has preceded, it would, perhaps, have been better to have discussed the proposed changes prior to just jumping in. I have added back one of the lines and tweaked some of the remainder. It still needs a bit of a copy edit to remove the multiple uses of Grant and Bond. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks OK and I didn't find any ambiguities in the account involving Bond and Grant. It was easier to make the changes than describe them and leave you to reword if necessary. I'd already indicated the areas that needed attention. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not "OK" at the moment, and it should be much better, which a minor ce on the paragraph should do. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Mzilikazi1939, I took out the reason for Grant stepping over Bond: it's just not needed in what is, after all, a summary of an entire plot, not a blow-by-blow account of all events. Please stick to BRD if you can, it will make life much easier. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I see you are still under the illusion that only you have the right to make changes. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please try to lose the attitude: I think nothing of the sort at all, I suggest you stick to BRD. It may only be a guideline, but it's a good one when there is disagreement. You boldly added the words "to shoot Romanova too" (among other changes); I reverted that (and left many of your other changes), and the next step is to discuss. There is a reason why I took out the reason for Grant stepping over Bond and it is above. To clarify further, the reason Grant steps over Bond is unimportant (i.e. it has no effect on the rest of the plot), it is the stepping over Bond that is important because it puts him in a position that Bond can attack. Can you see the reasoning now? - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Laurencebeck

Can you stop edit warring please. Everything you are doing either breaches the MoS, or breaks the formatting. You are also at WP:3RR, do you are best advised not to revert again. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please observe that a reader when clicking to open the Life Magazine reference to see the President Kennedy prefereces for 10 favorite books has presented the cover page to the particular magazine issue. The Wikipedia reader has no idea where to go to locate the relevant information that the main Wikipedia article gives information upon.

The reference that the reader has presented to him is in the References section of the main article. The particular reference is here, reference 64 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Russia,_with_Love_(novel)#cite_note-Time:_Kennedy-68 .

Sidey, Hugh (17 March 1961). "The President's Voracious Reading Habits". Life. 50 (11): 59. ISSN 0024-3019. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2011.

There is not a thing that tells a reader what to do with the magazine's cover as presented.

I have done what is possible to direct a reader to the relevant page where the information on the ten favourite books appears, p. 59. The Life magazine piece on the President's reading commences a few pages earlier, on p.55.

If WP:3RR is a conditioned position that is supposed to have some sensation to it, I cannot say that I deserve it.

. . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing is in line with all requirements as laid down by the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

> please note Wikipedia:Citing sources . . Linking to Google Books pages > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages < <
"Google Books sometimes allows numbered book pages to be linked to directly. . . . No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."

The Look Magazine from March 1961 availability is on Google Books and is used in the From Russia with Love (novel) Wikipedia article.

In my edit I took the Wikipedia reader to a specific page with the Google Books publication of the Look Magazine by specific word search of
kennedy ten favorites Ian Fleming LIFE 1961 LOVE
which found this page
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vUUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA59&dq=kennedy+ten+favorites+Ian+Fleming+LIFE+1961+LOVE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUlNqa0vToAhUMOisKHeVIBTkQ6AEISzAE#v=onepage&q=kennedy%20ten%20favorites%20Ian%20Fleming%20LIFE%201961%20LOVE&f=false .

The Wikipedia guideline is "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."

The page was found by me by reference to chosen words sought within the magazine. The page was not found by reference to the page number itself.

Nevertheless your guideline as you would be informed by Wikipedia for linking to Google Books pages is "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."

I have added a page link and it has been removed with the cause that it offends by your evaluation Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

The possibility, I trust, would be that you consider the re-installation of the reference that links to the Look Magazine page that is specific to President Kennedy's choice of ten favourite books.

Wikipedia:Citing sources >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages

. . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you write in a single coherent sentence what you are trying to ask? I don't have either the inclination or the energy to translate the twelve lines of gibberish above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages

"No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause . ."

Page links in Google Books sources do not offend Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

. . --Laurencebeck (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither do the links to overall publication. And you need to look at exactly what was reverted. You messed up so so so much in each of your edits, it's difficult to believe you've been on WP for more than five minutes. What the hell was going through your mind with this edit? Do you actually think that is in any way beneficial to anyone at all? Telling people to scroll to a page when the page number if already there. Readers are not morons: they don't need to be told how to navigate from page one to page 59 of a magazine. Ditto this edit. Are you so stupid that you think this is a step forward in the article? And this: repeating exactly the same reference that is already there??? You have been on WP for seven years, and every time I see your edits on the Bond pages, they are like seeing a clueless newbie making their first clumsy edits. if you can't be bothered to learn the basics then you're going to keep getting reverted because of the nonsense you keep doing. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

For the Wikipedia reader, you give the link to the Look Magazine published by Google Books on the internet, which observable link to that reader only contains this information >
Sidey, Hugh (17 March 1961). "The President's Voracious Reading Habits". Life. 50 (11): 59. ISSN 0024-3019. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2011.

Your link takes the reader to the cover only of the publication.

The article begins on p.55 and the President's list of 10 books is on p.59.
While the information that can be read by touching the reference on the article page, again I repeat here>
Sidey, Hugh (17 March 1961). "The President's Voracious Reading Habits". Life. 50 (11): 59. ISSN 0024-3019. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
does contain the lone figure 59 (the page number in the publication where the list is printed) it is meaningless to a browsing Wikipedia reader like me. The isolated number 59 does not tell me to scroll to p.59 of the magazine.
Within what a reader may see I added to in previous edits to indicate that scrolling to p.59 will find what the Wikipedia article text draws to the reader's attention.

You, as a guardian of British popular culture in Wikipedia, have your concept of the greater appropriatness of what should be accessible, but I cannot see that a direction to a publication's front cover with no direction to contents therein is telling anyone anything. Again, you are the representative of Her Majesty's culture. With hope, receive the necessary deference owed to you.--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• If you would like to change the way the standard method of reference formatting is done to include the words "turn to page xxx", then you'll need to open an RfC to suggest that. The problem with changing the link to the direct page is that the Google Book link works differently wherever you are. For some parts of the world, the specific page is not accessible, while in others it is. Taking to the front cover is the 'least bad' option; at least people will be able to flick a couple of pages to see the magazine index, where they can verify the existence of the article, at least. For those lucky parts of the world that do have access to the exact page, they can navigate there in the normal way, without any idiotic instructions telling them how to turn a page, or similar. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)