# Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series

This review is transcluded from Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk · contribs) 17:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This article looks rather interesting, I'd be happy to review it. Its detail may mean the review will take a few days. To begin I'm going to make some changes to the structure, if anyone does not agree please do leave your remarks here. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
1. a)The article reads quite poorly. There are many copy mistakes, both silly errors and poor punctutation, larger syntax ones which sometimes cloud the meaning. Sometimes they're stylistic points, but the piece does not flow like it should. I've quite a lot of experience copy-editing film articles and am happy to do it myself, please explain points of dispute. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure there are any points of dispute - I copy edited a couple of your edits in order to improve the flow and to change a spelling mistake. I look forward to seeing the rest of the review. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's coming up to a week since any part of the review was undertaken: just wondering when you're going to pick up on this again? Thanks -  SchroCat (^ • @) 12:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Generally a very good article.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I have made a few copyedits for prose and MoS issues, discuss below if you disagree with them.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
See below for a couple of points in this area.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
These are well done.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Points:

The long quote box at the end seems out of place and undue weight to me for this article.  It doesn't even contain the famous phrase.  It's already in the Shaken, not stirred article, where it is appropriate, but I think it should be taken out of here.
Done -  SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, I think the "Bond ... James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" quotes themselves could be in centered blue boxes, to make them more visible.  In particular, the first one kind of gets lost the way it is led into now.
I've done the first and I'm just thinking over the second one - how to make it fit in well, without seeming contrived. I agree it should go in there, but just working out how! the second one too! -  SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This looks better, but I think the first box should have the same format as the second, meaning it should be described as "Bond to numerous people, first heard in Dr. No."  Also, is it "Bond, James Bond" or "Bond ... James Bond"?  The article currently has both.  Does the interval between the two parts change over time in the films?  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Difficult to say about the spacing as it's on film, and it's transcribed in both formats by the various sources. (Additionally, the AFI have it as "Bond. James Bond.", just to add to the mix!) -  SchroCat (^ • @) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The one motif that I think is missing from the article are the one-liners Bond says.  I don't have a comprehensive list, but there are several subcategories of them, including the ones said after dispatching a villain:
Bond, after killing Kananga by forcing an expanding air cartridge down his throat in Live and Let Die: “He always did have an inflated opinion of himself.”
Bond, after killing a villain with a spear gun in Thunderball: “I think he got the point.”
Bond, after electrocuting Oddjob in Goldfinger: “He blew a fuse.”
and the double entendre lines, such as:
“Keeping the British end up, sir.”
“I always enjoyed learning a new tongue.”
And it would be useful to include the actors' reactions to doing these one-liners.  Pierce Brosnan later said he hated them: "It never felt real to me. I never felt I had complete ownership over Bond. Because you'd have these stupid one-liners — which I loathed — and I always felt phony doing them."
I'll work on this over the next few days. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made a start on this under the slightly broader heading of "Humour", but stuggling to ensure it's not just a list of one-liners! -  SchroCat (^ • @) 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Now done. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the best section title really "Humour", or would "One-liners" be better?  Are there other humourous motifs besides the one-liners, such as visual ones?  I think an example or two is needed of Moore self-mockery, and "wink at the audience" needs to be either attributed in text or paraphrased.  An example or two of Brosnan one-liners would also be helpful.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry—I missed this one before. I think "Humour" is a better title and I've added a couple of non-verbal elements which illustrate additional points. I've also added a Brosnan quote to even it out. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 21:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, this section looks good now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, the article is well-structured and I look forward to it reaching the GA level, but putting on hold for now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article some more, I think it would benefit from some kind of closing section that discusses the overall effect that these motifs have had on the series.  Have they helped give some thematic cohesiveness to a series that has otherwise varied greatly in style, pacing, casting, etc?  Have they helped maintain the films' longstanding commercial appeal?  Or have they contributed to a sense of cheesiness and self-parody that some think has set in?  That kind of thing.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much there is: the authors that identify the elements tend to do so in order to examine each film in the light of the motifs and end up looking at individual films, rather than the overall series. However, I'll have a better look and see what I can come up with. Cheers -  SchroCat (^ • @) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through the sources agin and I can't find anything that would adequately suit what you're saying. I know exactly what you mean, but nothing I have links the effect of the elements with the series as a whole, only on the individual films. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 12:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to look a bit on my own for this.  The article just feels incomplete without it.  Also note that there is an unresponded-to suggestion on the "Humour" section above.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No problems. I've found that things that there are not many things that look specifically at the motifs that run through the series and I've not found anything that summarises the overall effect on the series. Hope you find something, but I suspect that most of the things that criticise the series (or praise it) will do so on a more general level and not focus on the effect of these elements. Cheers -  SchroCat (^ • @) 21:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Just by its subtitle alone, I would think the Jütting book James Bond Over the Decades: Formula Vs. Innovation would have material along these lines.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't, I'm afraid. It has a lot of info about each of the elements (which is why it's been used extensively over the article) but nothing that states the effect of these motifs onto the series as a whole. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 16:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I spent some time at the library.  Did find one book you don't list, Laurent Bouzereau's The Art of Bond, which has lots of comments from people involved in all sorts of aspects of the films.  Especially good in how they dealt with the humour and one-liner and famous quotation 'requirements'.  Some grist for the section I had in mind, but not enough.  No matter, guess one must leave room for FA work.  Now passing this for GA, good job.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That's fantastic news—many thanks indeed! -  SchroCat (^ • @) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, nearly every Bond film has some scene with him in a Casino interacting with the Bond girl. Should this be mentioned? 
Agmenia (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope.Phd8511 (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree: it's not true for a start. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is usually a scene where there is a large battle between the two opposing forces (Moonraker, You Only Live Twice,  etc)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.204.61 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 

There is sometimes a climax to the film that involves a large battle scene, sometimes not: either way we're covered in the "Climax" section. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

An IP has recently been removing quotes, claiming them not to be quotes, despite the words being in quotation marks, and carrying valid sources. This is vandalism, nothing more, and despite being asked to use the talk page instead of continuing to vandalise the article, then have just kept on reverting. IP: do you have something to say about the use of quotes here, or are you just being troublesome? - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologise for your offensive and ridiculous accusation of vandalism.  Once you've done that, I'll do my best to explain some basic principles of encyclopaedia writing to you.  201.215.252.50 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Get over yourself and stop warring IP.  Now discuss the matter in hand if you have issues with it. Cassiantotalk  22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Use of quotes counts as fair use.  Lifting of chunks of text verbatim when you can quite obviously write the text in the voice of the encyclopaedia does not.  For example:

Commander James Bond, CMG, RN—code number 007—is a fictional character created by the British journalist and novelist Ian Fleming in 1952
is fine.

James Bond is "a British literary and film character, a peerless spy, notorious womanizer, and masculine icon (Encyclopaedia Britannica)"
is not.  Who here comprehends that difference?  Anyone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.252.50 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have provided no evidence of ANY copyright violations at all, and you have edit warred with two editors FIVE TIMES in your erroneous grasp of what a "violation" is. I have happily reported you for the edit warring and will wait to see if you can give any - ANY - examples of violations before asking the good people who run our copyright checks to see if they can find anything at all wrong with what is on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see that the user at IP 201.215.252.50 has been blocked for edit warring and, in particular, has continued to argue with other editors about copyright law. That user is continuing to make false statements in edit summaries, such as "Lifting text verbatim from sources instead of writing your own words is a copyright violation", which of course is blatantly false, as he well knows. Copyright law has been clearly explained to him. The quotations in the article (what the user tendentiously calls "chunks" of text) do not violate the Fair Use Doctrine. I didn't realize he was still engaging in his behavior.
Fair Use does indeed include "lifting chunks of text verbatim" -- even if someone could avoid the quoting by writing the text "in the voice of the encyclopaedia" or not. There is no legal requirement that an encyclopedia article avoid "lifting chunks of text verbatim". The whole point of the Fair Use Doctrine is that you CAN quote from sources, within certain limits. The "chunks" of quotes in this article are well within the limits and scope of the Fair Use Doctrine. Famspear (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You almost get it, and yet somehow you are too stupid to really get it.  Fair use has limits, as you correctly state, and there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia.  The first item in the policy on non-free content, which you obviously haven't read, is this:
Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
Please do explain what encyclopaedic purpose you are trying to defend.  201.215.252.50 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear User at IP 201.215.252.50: No, I'm not stupid. And since you brought up the subject of my intellect: My tested IQ is on the level of a Nobel Prize winner. And I'm smart enough to have been editing here in Wikipedia for over eight years without getting blocked. I'm smart enough to follow the rules. I'm smart enough to know not to come back to this same article and try to re-insert the same material that other editors have repeatedly rejected. And I'm smart enough not to immediately start breaking rules when I come back after having been blocked for breaking the rules -- as you just broke the rules by engaging in a personal attack against me.
I'm also smart enough to understand the Fair Use doctrine when it's explained to me ONCE. More to the point: I'm a lawyer; it's my job to teach YOU the law and the rules here in Wikipedia. It's not your job to teach me.
I'm smart enough to understand the difference between the "no free equivalent" rule that you keep citing and the basic concept THAT THE KINDS OF QUOTES IN WIKIPEDIA THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO REMOVE ARE ACTUALLY OK. THESE KINDS OF QUOTES DON'T BREAK THE "NO FREE EQUIVALENT" RULE.
If you continue with this line of editing and this line of dealing with your fellow editors, you will probably be blocked again -- for a longer period of time, probably (not by me, but by an administrator).
The rest of the world is not here to satisfy you. Please review Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Do not continue to try to insert material that OTHER EDITORS HAVE REJECTED, over and over and over again. Famspear (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


### December 2014
Oh good, the edit warring IP from South America has returned again, and is prepared to ignore tis thread, and the strong consensus it contains, in order to edit war once again to their own POV. The IP has als lied in their summary "don't revert for no reason", given that there was a reason, and one that was outlined in the edit summary, pointing them to this thread. Sadly this disruptive editor seems not to have learned from their previous exchanges at ANI, and seems to consider that warring is te justifiable way to proceed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[1] A seminal moment in cinema is as blatant an example of POV as you could find.  NPOV is a core policy.
[2] "Towards" means towards.  "At" means at.  Using one means that the other doesn't apply.  We do not need to list all the prepositions that do not apply to a given situation.
[3] Copying and pasting text from sources instead of writing your own words is fundamentally contradictory to the aim of writing an encyclopaedia.  In addition, "famous" and "immortal" are peacock words and reproducing them like this is reproducing the POV of the source.  Putting relevant information in footnotes doesn't help anyone.  And finally, putting a quote in a big green box when it is already present in the text is redundant.
These should be uncontroversial changes but there seem to be ownership issues here.  Perhaps someone would be good enough to explain why core policies and principles of good writing don't apply to this article.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no ownership issues here, just your inability to remind youself of the contents of the above thread which eschews your view of quotations.
The image caption is supported by the text, which is supported by the sources;
It didn't happen "at" the beginning of the film, that's the point. It was "near", or "towards" the beginning: this is entirely acceptable in British English (you may also note that I edited this point before you reverted twice. You are therefore the one who has warred to put back in the language you are complaining about;
Nonsense (see the above thread). The use of supported quotations is entirely acceptable beneficial, especially in a section titled "Quotations". The words "famous" and "immortal" are parts of quotes, held in inverted commas, you may note, which means that they are not POV, but the correctly reported words of reliable sources.
As was covered in the thread above last time you visited this article, the text is in line not just with the core policies and principles of good writing, but with the guidelines of the MoS, and good, encyclopaedic standards of British English. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
To comply with policy, you'd have to write something like "described by some as being a seminal moment in cinema".  As it is, it's blatantly POV and blatantly in violation of core policy.
Looks like you don't even understand the text you're fighting over.  Either that or you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation.  I certainly did not put back anything that I was complaining about.
Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided....Quotes shouldn't replace plain, conscise text...Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. However, just as with fair-use images, fair-use quotation has limitations: The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject.  We can use plain, concise text, and the quotes do not in any way aid the understanding of the subject.200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No: the caption is supported by the text.
In that case,can you explan what you were doing with this edit? You changed "in an exchange near the beginning of the film" to "introduced towards the beginning of the film". Explain.
We adhere to the guidelines in this section and, in doing so, support the views of reliable third-party sources, and avoid being accused of using peacock language, puffery etc. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of POV is not justified.  It can never be justified.  It violates core policy.
You clearly do not understand the original objection.  This diff has nothing to do with anything.
The guidelines are plainly violated.  Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text, but you are doing exactly that.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much more clear I can be here, because you are not in recieving mode: it is not POV, it is supported by the text and their associated citations, as per the MoS.
I understand entirely: you edit warred away from something you wanted. You knee-jerk reversions show you were not clearly considering what you were doing, you were just reverting for the sake of it. Do you agree that the current version—"in an exchange near the beginning of the film"—is the preferred version?
No, not at all. Not only do are the guidelines adhered to quite adequately, they are backed up by the clear consensus given in the thread above.
I note you've needlessly reverted the title, which should, per the MoS, be neutral, not the misleading one you've put in there. Your edit summary of "don't edit other people's comments" regarding titles is nonsense: thread titles are not comments, and it is acceptable to edit them accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Describing something as a "seminal moment in cinema" in the voice of the encyclopaedia is as blatantly obviously POV as it gets.
No, you really don't understand.  I originally removed the absurd formulation "towards, but not at".  I did not restore anything that I did not want.
You are replacing plain, concise text with a quote.  To deny it is as foolish as denying that the sky is blue.  You could presumably try to justify your actions instead of denying them.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
And finally, if you think the MOS applies to section headings on talk pages, your problems are worse than I thought.  you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.  But I expect you think that doesn't apply to you either.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This is becoming tiresomely circular, so I will await the thoughts of others
Explain?
This use is entirely acceptable and in line with good practice. There is a consensus to have the quotes as they are. You need to stop flogging the dead equine and move on.
As to the title, see WP:TALKNEW, "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." See also WP:TPO, "no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate. So no, I think your opinion may not be entirely in line with the rest of the Wikipedia—and not for the first time. – SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
What is it that you want explaining, exactly?  And I do hope someone else might explain the concept of POV to you.  There is no consensus to use quotes in place of plain, concise text - in fact, a consensus for the opposite exists.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that on point 2, you have been edit warring against your preferred version, which is rather odd. As to the rest, I fully understand POV, just as I understand the concept of consensus (see the thread above as to how it relates to this discussion) and the fact that you've ignored every point that has been turned against you (including point 2, and the issue of thenon-neutral title that anyone can edit. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It's entirely obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.  My preferred version did not include the ridiculous phrase "towards, but not at".  Your demands for explanations of unrelated edits are immature and unhelpful.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
So why did you revert it back in? Please refrain from dropping to uncivil insults of other editors: it is not helpful or constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Christ almighty, what is your problem?  I did not put the phrase "towards, but not at" back into the article.  Your diff shows that. This begins to look like trolling.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not say you did: I wondered why you edit warred a poor sentence into the article. Again, please try and remain civil to others if you possibly can. It is not constructive to continually insult and attempt to berate others. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You said exactly that, in your previous comment, which you made just a few minutes ago.  Stop trolling.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that at all. Now, for the third time, please stop insulting other editors. As you are keen on quoting guidelines at people, please see WP:CIVIL.  SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Me: My preferred version did not include the ridiculous phrase "towards, but not at"
You: So why did you revert it back in?
Me: I did not put the phrase "towards, but not at" back into the article.
You: I did not say you did
Immature doesn't even begin to describe it.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Which bit of WP:CIVIL do you need explaining more clearly. Forr the fourth time, can you please stop insulting other editors: it is more a reflection on you than anyone else. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reluctant though I am to wade into the guts of a GA, since edit warring has been occurring and now discussion is degenerating - I'd like to reboot the discussion.  It seems to me that there are several elements to the IP's changes that should be discussed separately - as the IP started to at the beginning of this section, but even more so.
"not at but towards" - agreement seems to have been reached
"seminal" in the caption - that's a hefty claim; in my view the same word would need to appear in the text, with a reference that explicitly uses the word. Is there such a reference? If not I agree with the IP, that freights the caption too heavily
the boxes with quotations in them - are they called "pull quotes"? - I generally don't like the look of such things, but it's been stated that there is consensus above to use them
avoiding putting useful information in refs rather than article text - on the whole I agree with the IP here, but it's bound up with the issue of boxes with quotes in them. It's possible to see the boxes either as summaries of what is (presumably) stated elsewhere in the article text, or as highly emphasised parts of the article text that the reader will be presumed to read and whose content therefore doesn't need to be repeated or summarised in the text
use of quotations to characterise something as "famous", "immortal", etc. - On the whole I prefer the quotes in such instances, contrary to the IP: if we're going to characterise something in such loaded ways, it's better done in a quote from an authoritative source than in Wikipedia's voice, either using the same evaluative terms or putting the original in a footnote; that way the reader doesn't see us being non-neutral; and since such evaluations are the basis for having this article, I don't think in this instance we should just leave them out.
I'm pretty sure it can be broken down further, and I hope I haven't made things unalterably messy by adding my view in each case. But now I must go afk for a little while, so I'm putting down my thoughts in hope of yanking the discussion out of its rut and moving towards a resolution. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the IP's edits are mostly an improvement since economy is a virtue. Mind you, I do not have the IQ of a Nobel prize winner. How much quotation is allowed as fair use is an ongoing matter of contention; I would not have much of a problem with these since they are relatively short. However, on the (admittedly small) screen of my desktop, the quoteboxes look seriously messed up--they're only three words wide and the line breaks look haphazard. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I've not found a source which uses "seminal" (although I am fairly sure I've read one somewhere, I just can't find it), so I've swapped it out for something suitable, even though it's another quote.
Drmies, Given your comments about the boxes, I've tweaked these slightly to smooth things out.
Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)