Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Output of Lazy Peer Review program

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program:

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kweeket 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sex

"Fleming's natural English reserve has been blamed for his fumbling descriptions of sex scenes in Live and Let Die."

Might it not also have more to do with the fact that at the date it was published, you could only really say so much in a mainstream novel? --MacRusgail 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

Here are my review comments:

• I don't think the character list is entirely appropriate, I'd prefer to see the characters, should they be significant enough, be wikilinked in the prose of the plot summary. Also, not sure why the characters are in bold either. In any case, the character list should follow the summary as it's confusing to have mini-summaries with each character and then the whole plot summary after.
  •  Done I think the information is relevant, and has been moved down the page under plot. SpecialWindler talk 05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• This probably shows my ignorance, but does the book not have an ISBN now? Perhaps the infobox ISBN is supposed to relate to the first edition, which may not have had an ISBN, in which case ignore this.
  •  Done The first edition was published before ISBN came around, so. The ISBN's of later publications are in the publication history. SpecialWindler talk 06:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• "MI-6" or "MI6"? consistency required.
  •  Done SpecialWindler talk 23:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Typos - "practicioner", "hopsital", "barricuda" to name but three...
  •  Done Kweeket 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Racism section has four very short paragraphs, consider merging.
  •  Done The first two paragraphs are the same with just a quote in the middle. SpecialWindler talk 12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• "...obvious inference being ..." is this original research or has somebody of prominence suggested it? If so, let's cite them.
  •  Done Added reference Tovojolo 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Sex section has three short paragraphs, definitely merge the last of them into para two.
  •  Done SpecialWindler talk 12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'd wikilink blaxploitation, it's important.
  •  Done Kweeket 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Turn the list of differences from the film into prose.
  •  Done
• "...part of the Casino Royale collection that includes Casino Royale and Moonraker..." what exactly is the Casino Royale collection?
  •  Done SpecialWindler talk 12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comic strip adaptation section could do with citation.
  •  Done SpecialWindler talk 05:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Why is the publication history small font?
  •  Done don't know. SpecialWindler talk 06:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Can the Category:Caribbean be refined?
  •  Not done I couldn't find a suitable category undeneath that one (sub categories) like "Fiction set in the Caribbean" but. Personally I don't think it should be there. But when you review this again you can remove it, If you feel like. It not a hard thing to do. SpecialWindler talk 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think these issues can be resolved, particularly as it's a COTW currently, so I'll put the GA on-hold. Let me know if you'd like me to re-review it in due course. The Rambling Man 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcripts

You can read some Bond books here (LALD as well as TB, CR, FYEO, FRWL)

http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/1054

GA re-review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

My concerns have now been addressed so I'm happy to make this a good article. The Rambling Man 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Racism

The article is factually incorrect when it states: "His writing style cannot divert attention away from his copious use of the word "nigger" in the novel. It is used, generally, in reference to black people and, specifically, in reference to Mr. Big. Fleming uses the word to denote people of passion who think by instinct, in contrast to Bond and other white people, whom Fleming regards as thinking by logic. [2]"

The word appears twice in the text.

The first time is the usage refered to in the citation - "Nigger Heaven" - which refers to the balconies of segregated theatres. There is even a wiki entry for this reference. If this is the name used to refer to the place then its hard to consider that racist.

The second usage comes from the character Solitair when Bond rescues her and she says: "I've been shut up with him and his nigger gangsters for nearly a year."

Having just read the book looking for instances, these are the only 2 I found.

Hence the phrase "copious use of the word nigger" is factually incorrect.

The discussion of whether the book is racist is entirely appropriate. It seemed racist to me. Ian Fleming seemed to spread stereo types wildly. All black dialog is presented as poorly as one would find in a Mark Twain novel. The only intelligent black character is the villian.

But use of the word copiously is entirely incorrect.

(Note: This my first wiki contribution. Please forgive any missing common standards.)

Billvaxman (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC) billvaxman

Sometimes an argument is factually incorrect but the assertion is true. Having read Live and Let Die and having read Dr. No I have very little doubt that Ian Fleming would be considered racist today. In Dr. No he refers to Chinese Negro mixed as Chigroes (possibly Chegroes as my source is an ausio-book). He mentions the Chinese as being clever and wonders if the Chegroes are susceptible to the character flaws inherent in Negroes. Using Negroes in the 60s shouldn't be considered high racism, but the views about blacks exibited in the works do. That said, the racism thing should be smaller, better organized, and most of all sourced. I can think Ian a racist, but it doesn't belong in a Wiki article unless we can find excellent documentation that establishes the claim. Even then it must have some relevance. Basically, I think that there might be merit for a racism section in an article about Ian Fleming, but here it should get surface mention and point to the main Ian article. It's worth consideration.--Mokru (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Some critics have accused Fleming of barely concealed racism..." I have no doubt this is true -- since the popularization of the work to a mass audience through the movie in the 1970s. However, this is accusing a dead man who cannot respond to criticisms. Is there any evidence whatsoever that Fleming was criticized for political incorrectness between the book's publication in 1954 and his death in 1964? For that matter, is there any evidence that any author was accused of political incorrectness in those days? (95.149.136.110 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article should be delisted because of its clear lack of reliable sources. It previously depended far too much on blog posts. Given the number of books and critical studies that have been written on Bond, it's surprising that none are cited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As the previous reviewer has not concluded the review, I will finish it. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 28, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is lacking many citations.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Reference #5 is a bog/fan site, thus not an WP:RS; likewise #6; #7; and #8

Since the addition of references to the Background section, the above refers to #9 through #12. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

1. c (OR):

   • no OR

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • OK

   b (focused):

   • OK

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • OK

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • OK

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • One image tagged correctly

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Appropriately used and captioned.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • On hold whilst the above concerns are met. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, the Background section has been addressed, but nothing else, so delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

It's pretty ironic that the article basically says "This book and its author are racist" and then goes on immediately after to say "Ian Fleming couldn't write about sex well because he was English." There's real racism for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense in 'Background' section

"Fleming conducted research for Live and Let Die and completed it before Casino Royale was published; his publishers had offered him a contract for three books following Royale's popularity."

This sentence needs to be revised. The contract ensuing from CR's popularity cannot have led to him undertaking research before CR was published, as implied.89.80.194.201 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)