Talk:Operation Goldeneye

Spain and WWII

"Ultimately Francisco Franco, the dictator of Spain, declined to join the Axis Powers after Adolf Hitler refused to give Gibraltar and French North Africa to Spain."

Is this true? I was under the impression the reason was that during the talks between Franco and Hitler, Franco made too many demands for food and materiel. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Name (2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Surely this should be "Operation Golden Eye", not "Goldeneye"? If no-one objects, I'll change on this article in a while... - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but I think this should be 'Operation Goldeneye'. It has admittedly been spelled 'Golden Eye' in a lot of sources, including Andrew Lycett, but the most authoritative source for this has to be the primary one, ie the contemporaneous British government documents about the operation. I have some of these, from the UK National Archives, and they repeatedly call the operation 'Goldeneye'. The folder I have is a report by the Joint Planning Staff of the War Cabinet from March 31 1941, which is CAB 79/10 in the National Archives filing system: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C387085 But there are plenty of other documents about the operation at the National Archives, and you don't need to order them to see this because the same spelling is in all the descriptions, which are quoting from the documents' tables of contents. For example, please see: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C4123380 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9166692 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9166695 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9190702 and http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C9190706. I can't see any that are spelled 'Golden Eye' but am of course happy to be corrected if that is the case. Nicholas Rankin, in his 2011 book Ian Fleming's Commandos, refers to the operation as 'Golden Eye' in the text of Chapter 5. But in the source notes for the chapter, he writes 'further Goldeneye matters are in CAB 84/28/241'. I think this, plus the six primary documents about the operation I've listed, suggest that we should change this to Operation Goldeneye. If nobody objects, I'll change this in the article in a while. Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is that there isn't consistency, even in the National Archives: CAB 80/27/28 describes it as "GOLDEN EYE", for example. In secondary sources too, there is a split: a Google books search shows 30 references to "Operation Golden Eye" and 53 to "Operation Goldeneye". Although there is a bias towards the two words, the one word variant is still quite strong. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Great spot on CAB 80/27/28. I've just ordered it, and will check what it is like inside. But, as mentioned above, there at least six other primary sources putting it in one word. Secondary sources are surely irrelevant here. As Lycett called it Golden Eye, others will have followed him, and so on. We just need to check the primary sources, because they are clearly always going to be the strongest source for what the operation was actually called. Even if every secondary source called it Golden Eye, it wouldn't matter if the primary sources don't. I'll check CAB 80/27/28, but that is still six primary sources to one for Goldeneye. Unless there are more, I still think Goldeneye has it. Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, secondary sources are more important in many cases. Article names are based on WP:COMMONNAME, rather than the "correct" name. In this case it's such a minor difference between the two that it's a toss up on either of them as to which is more common (or more correct) than the other. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

CAB 80/27/28 does indeed refer to it as 'GOLDEN EYE' inside the document itself, and not 'GOLDENEYE'. At a guess, these were different departments, different secretaries and so on - such an inconsistency was probably quite common. I don't see it as being a toss-up - six primary sources have it as a single word, and one as two words. And, according to you, 53 secondary sources have it as a single word, but only 30 as two. So the primary and secondary sources are both weighed strongly in favour of 'Goldeneye'. But apart from the fact that this is just one primary source and there are six other calling it Goldeneye, there's one rather common sense reason for presuming that it didn't have a space. Ian Fleming was involved in the operation, and he named his house in Jamaica after it. You'd have thought he'd have known how it was spelled. And he, too, spelled it with no space. Unless you can find five other primary sources for the space, do you or anyone else have any objections to me changing this? One option might be to call the article 'Operation Goldeneye' and use that spelling throughout the body, but make a small remark in an endnote that although most primary sources spell it this way, one doesn't, with the references given. Would that be satisfactory? Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same about having a note about the different spellings, which should probably be in the article regardless of the title. No one else has joined in the discussion (this really is a very quiet backwater in Wiki) so feel free to make the change if you wish. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid your officiousness in the last two days and on the other thread just now has worn me out. I'm not interested. Make the change yourself or leave it as inaccurate. I'm done. Life is too short to spend trying to improve articles with the little knowledge I have and spend days on end arguing the tiniest of tiny things with you. But very well done for your enormous victory on keeping a tiny accurate edit about Per Fine Ounce out of the Ian Fleming article by the person who wrote the article on Per Fine Ounce. Pat on the back. FA status. I'm enormously impressed by your diligence. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done for checking on the Fleming article: the change was made some time ago. Great investigative journalist you are. You will not be missed here. You have the wrong mentality, the wrong spirit, have not bothered to work out how things are done, have no idea what good faith is, and do not bother to read what others try and tell you when they are well-meaning. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious - you deliberately made the change without saying so on the Talk page, while I was writing a response on that page, knowing I would not see it while I did so. No, you were never well-meaning. You just want to protect your little fiefdom. I am rather a good investigative journalist, actually, and I think my published record shows it more than having the right window open to spot the moment you make an edit without saying so. My journalistic skills and knowledge are why, in the end, kicking and screaming, you reverted every single edit of mine, admitting you were wrong on every point. You were wrong on this one, too: it's Operation Goldeneye. But yes, I do have the wrong mentality to be a Wikipedia editor. You have just the right mentality for it, though. Shame you can't weigh sources properly or admit when you're wrong, though. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I deliberately edited the article because I knew you were editing something else? That is just too ridiculous to even begin to deal with. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Go on, then. We were having a discussion to reach consensus. Your last comment before you made the change was against it. Where did you announce on the Talk page that you had reached consensus with me on this and so would edit the article? Why did you not do that? Jeremy Duns (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back - you did sort of indicate you were leaning towards consensus in your last comment. But you made the edit without first stating it on the Talk page. As I was replying to both you and Cassianto, who was then veering away from consensus, I happened to be on the Talk page and so didn't see you had reverted - because *you didn't say you had on the Talk page until after you did it*. Hardly very surprising. But sure, my journalism is broken by this. Get back to me when you've discovered something new about Fleming or Bond, please! Or anything, actually. I'd be interested in checking the sources, because you seem to have little clue how to weigh them. In the meantime, do enjoy arguing black is white for days with anyone who makes a small but accurate edit to impriove any of the articles you watch over. It must make you feel swell. Or, you know, do the research first like anyone with any common sense. Jeremy Duns (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to withdraw from this until you learn how to conduct yourself properly. There are rules on conduct on Wiki and people have been extremely lenient with you so far, but that patience is being quickly exhausted. Mine has gone, as far as your conduct is concerned. If you want to move this article, do so: I care not one way or the other, as you are simply not worth the hassle. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you not care about leaving the inaccurate edit you made to the title of this article to stand? I actually have no idea how to change the title. And my patience with you was exhausted long before you spent *over two days* insisting on arguing with me about tiny edits I had made, all of which were accurate, without even glancing at the already-cited sources first. And you've yet again gone for this moral high ground posturing to avoid addressing my point: *you* sought a consensus discussion in Talk, then restored the edit without saying you had reached consensus in Talk - you *then* came to Talk, where I was still discussing it with someone else, to gloat you had already restored it and I'd missed you'd just done so without informing anyone. Hardly good faith! Hardly the point of having a discussion to reach mutual consensus. Please grow up. Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Considering that the above discussion was not processed as a formal move request and that a more recent move request was closed (on 11 May 2013) with no consensus to move the article, and that the article has been at its current name since 2011, any new decision to move the article should be processed as a new ordinary formal move request (not as a technical request that assumes a lack of controversy). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As can obviously be seen, there was no consensus for the second discussion: there was for this. As per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY I think it behoves us to revert to the previous and correct name, which would be a revert of my earlier erroneous re-naming. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Was this a plan or an operation?

The article is ambiguous about whether Golden Eye was a plan or an operation, beginning "Operation Golden Eye was an Allied plan during World War II, that monitored Spain after the Spanish Civil War." If it was acted upon, then it was an operation and not a plan, and if it was not acted upon, then it was a plan, and not an operation. The first sentence calls it a plan but also says that it monitored Spain, which is an action, not a plan.

The second sentence describes it as an operation ("The goal of the operation"). The third sentence calls it a plan again ("it was a plan for the defence of Gibraltar"). The fourth sentence calls it a plan ("The plan was developed"). The fifth sentence describes an actual action (" Fleming was sent to Gibraltar"), implying thereby that it was not a plan but an actual operation. The following sentence also describes Fleming liaising with the OSS.

This confusion should be cleared up. — O'Dea (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No need for a clear up. It was an operation, filed and called "Operation Golden Eye". The operation was a contingency plan that was never put into motion. Just becuase it's a plan doesn't mean its not an operation and vice versa... - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Goldeneye was neither an operation nor a plan. In the article as it stands, there's a bit where it says 'One of the prime motivations for Fleming's presence in Gibraltar was to set up a Golden Eye liaison office.' In fact, Goldeneye was simply the codename for that liaison office, or delegation. The delegation mostly consisted of British military experts, and as the circumstances of the war changed so did the personnel within it. On March 31 1941, Goldeneye consisted of Major-General Mason McFarlane, a Captain Morgan, a Group Captain Chamberlayne, staff officers of all three armed services, a Chief Operations Executive Officer (the SOE representative) and Staff. This is according to a Joint Planning Staff report from that date, held in the UK National Archives, reference CAB 79/10. You can download the report for free from here: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C387085 The report is on the pages numbered 160 and 161 in the top-right-hand corner of that file and it deals with the information in 'Telegram G 1028 cipher 25/3 from "Goldeneye"'. The report indicates that a couple of those people were to be replaced, and there is more about that in subsequent files, such as CAB 80/27, from April 8 1941, which noted that as part of the delegation's work had been done some of its members would return home, with a nucleus of the delegation remaining on Gibraltar. That can also be downloaded for free, from here: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9196531 It's on the pages marked 103 and 104 in the top right-hand corner. The memorandum ends 'Inform S.O. Force H. and GOLDEN EYE.' Obviously, one can't inform a plan or an operation of something in this way, any more than one can receive a ciphered telegram from an operation or plan - but one can inform a liaison office, and one can receive a ciphered telegram from it.

Goldeneye was set up for the reasons mentioned in the article, but was also meant to assist BALLAST, which was the codename for the British plan to establish a military force in Spanish North Africa, by planning an advance party that would arrive in Gibraltar and then the landing of the rest of the force in Spanish Morrocco. BALLAST was itself part of BLACKTHORN, the codename for the wider British plan to assist Spain in the event of the Nazis occupying it and taking the Allies side. As noted in the article, if the Spanish chose to join the Axis Powers, Goldeneye was to assist guerilla warfare against Spain and protect Gibraltar if possible - this would have involved assisting the TRACER team and SOE. There are various sources for all this, including a couple cited in the article already, the primary sources in the National Archives I've linked to, and Churchill's The Ever-Widening War.

In summary, then: Goldeneye has often been called an operation, sometimes a plan, and sometimes both, and it has also been spelled with a space in it in several secondary sources and at least one primary source, as noted in the conversation above this one. It is most often spelled as one word in primary sources, where it is also often capitalized. But it wasn't in fact the name of an operation or of a plan, but the codename for a British intelligence delegation based on Gibraltar that was to have assisted British operations in the event of a German invasion of Spain or Spain joining the Axis Powers, neither of which happened. Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit the title of this article or I'd suggest doing it, perhaps to 'Goldeneye: British wartime delegation' or something similar. I think as well as the title and spelling of the codename being changed, quite a bit of the body should probably be changed, too. The first sentence currently reads:

'Operation Golden Eye was an Allied plan during World War II which was to monitor Spain after a possible alliance between Francisco Franco—the dictator of Spain—and the Axis powers and to undertake sabotage operations. The plan was formed by Lieutenant Commander Ian Fleming of the Naval Intelligence Division.'

Perhaps that could be changed to something along the lines of:

'Goldeneye was the codename for a British intelligence delegation based on Gibraltar during World War II, the primary purpose of which was to prepare for British military forces landing in the region in the event that Spain entered the war on either side, and to assist with guerilla operations in Spain after that. The delegation was formed by Lieutenant Commander Ian Fleming of the Naval Intelligence Division, later the author of the James Bond novels...'

What do people think? Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"'Goldeneye: British wartime delegation'"? No. See WP:UCN: Operation Golden Eye or Operation Goldeneye are the only titles which should be considered. - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, you've decided to get involved: let's be constructive, please, and try to work together without wasting too much time to reach consensus and improve this article. Can we also have a simple ground rule that if you decide to edit the article regarding the topics we're discussing on this Talk page, you first state here, on this Talk page, that you will do that before doing so? It seems silly to have a consensus discussion, reach it, and then not say 'I agree and will make the change' but just do it, as you did on Jenkins. Especially if you're then going to use it as a stick to beat me with.

I've read WP:UCN. It says: 'Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.' In this case, the current article title is inaccurate, because Goldeneye was not an operation but the name of the British intelligence delegation on Gibraltar. Lots of secondary sources have got this wrong, yes - but it's clear from the primary sources, which have been declassified by the UK National Archives, as explained above. The primary sources are clearly the most reliable ones on this.

I've also read the section on that page titled 'Deciding on an article title'. It says there are no hard and fast rules on this, but that editors should reach consensus on it on their own judgement of the merits. It lists some helpful criteria (but not rules) in trying to decide such an issue:

'A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.'

I agree that on this one, 'Operation Goldeneye' is more recognizable than 'Goldeneye: British wartime delegation'. On the other hand, part of the reason the 'Operation' bit is often used in secondary sources, such as online articles, is probably a result of it being used in this article. Another major reason it is used, I think, is simply in order to distinguish it from the film, the game, and Ian Fleming's Jamaican home. And I think if you are familiar with this it would be obvious from the title I'm proposing what it is about. It might even intrigue people enough to read more about it rather than just skipping over to the bit on the film. 'Eh? I thought it was an operation... Oh, gosh. Interesting.' Another major problem here is that we will then have an article that contradicts the title, which will just look a bit shoddy. I think there must be a way to make it easily recognizable *and* accurate.

'Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.'

On the one hand, Operation Goldeneye is probably more natural, but actually I think people would be more likely to search for the word Goldeneye, which is obviously the key one. And if you do search for that on the homepage, the dropdown menu doesn't include this article - you have to go to the disambiguation page first. It would have made more sense for this article to have been called 'Goldeneye (wartime operation)'. Except that that is not what it was, and I think we should try to be accurate if we can. Surely we can!

'Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.'

That's the case for the current title and the one I'm proposing. But obviously the one I suggested has the major advantage of being precise and accurate.

'Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.'

Well, Operation Goldeneye is shorter, but it's inaccurate. I think 'Goldeneye: British intelligence delegation based on Gibraltar in World War Two' would be too long. I think 'Goldeneye: British wartime delegation' or perhaps 'Goldeneye: British intelligence delegation' would make it clear to people what it is.

'Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.'

I don't think there are articles about anything quite like this - I think this was a unique set-up during the war. So I don't think this applies.

I think we could argue about his until 2023, but I'd rather not. I think what we need is an article title that is accurate, but also makes it clear to casual users that it is what they might well know as 'Operation Goldeneye' or in some cases the Goldeneye plan or mission, or what-have-you. In some sources it is just referred as Goldeneye. The main thing is it needs to be distinguishable from the film, game, soundtrack, residence, and so on, and be obvious it is about 'that stuff that went on in the Second World War on Gibraltar that Fleming was involved in'. I think 'Operation Goldeneye' does do that, but has the major disadvantage of being wrong. I'm open to other suggestions, but how about 'Goldeneye (wartime intelligence)'? And then, somewhere in the lede state '(sometimes referred to as 'Operation Goldeneye' or Operation Golden Eye')'. Would this not be a common-sense way that we could change the title of this article to make it accurately reflect a piece of British military history using the primary sources on it? In doing so, we would be correcting the error that has persisted until now, and hopefully more sources in future might be acccurate as a result of our efforts. Surely a worthy goal, if not one of the main goals, of Wikipedia! It seems to go against common sense to persist in using an inaccurate title. Jeremy Duns (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The secondary sources are fairly clear that the common name is "Operation Golden....". It's the phrase people will read in books, see on the internet and watch television programmes about. It is, therefore, the name that is used for the article title. See WP:PRIMARY as to why we favour the use of secondary sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

How tedious of you to respond to my long reasoning in such an intransigent way, without even bothering to take my points on board. Are you intent on wasting an enormous amount of both of our time yet again? Part of the reason people see it as 'Operation Golden Eye' on the internet is because of this article! Wikipedia is very inluentuial. And the secondary sources aren't decisive - most do refer to it as Operation Goldeneye or Operation Golden Eye, but several reliable sources don't:

The Churchill War Papers: The Ever Widening War vol 3 (ed Martin Gilbert): 'Goldeneye: British Liaison Delegation for Spain, based in Gibraltar.' (p1722)

Ian Fleming's Commandos: The Story of the Legendary 30 Assault Unit by Nicolas Rankin: 'Many of the preparations to counter FELIX came under the code name GOLDEN EYE, and the docket on the subject became one of Ian Fleming's babies at the NID.' (p97)

'Real 'Goldeneye' passport to be auctioned', BBC News, 1 February 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/627598.stm: 'He was sent to Gibraltar to monitor military installations in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. While there, Fleming took part in a mission named Goldeneye - later to be the title of both his Caribbean house and a James Bond movie.'

Regardless, as stated by WP:UCN: 'Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.' This is a classic case of that. The primary sources all indicate it was not an operation, and we need to reflect that both in the body of the article and in its title. We need to find a way to do it that makes it easily identified by anyone who has an interest. How about we redirect searches on 'Operation Golden Eye' and 'Operation Goldeneye' to this article, which we title 'Goldeneye (British WW2 intelligence unit)'? Would that work? I don't agree that we should keep an inaccurate title - that will just be counter-productive, as it will continue to perpetuate this error both here and in any other sources that consult it as a result. Jeremy Duns (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, your continued incivility and insults towards others has once again driven me away from this discussion. If you cannot discuss matters without resorting to insulting others in order to make your point then I am afraid I will not be party to those discussions. I am relatively ambivalent as to whether this article is called Operation Golden Eye or Operation Goldeneye, as the Golden Eye name seems to be interchangeable in both primary and secondary sources. If you wish change it to something entirely different then you will find it contested. You are suggesting a controversial title and if you decide to try and make the change it will be open for comment from the wider community to discuss. Once again I find myself edit conflicted by your continual tinkering with your answer: in future, and as a courtesy to others, please use the preview function to ensure you get your answer right first time before posting. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Where was I uncivil to you in that response? Sorry, I am genuinely puzzled by that. Oh, I see, I said you were being 'tedious' - sorry I think you are and were. You replied to my very reasonable, constructive and thought-through response with, in effect, a quick, intransigent, unconstructive 'No'. As you have withdrawn again I can't reach consensus with you. But I'm not going to make any changes to this article until I've reached a consensus with the wider community. So where do I raise or discuss that, please? Jeremy Duns (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Operation_Golden_Eye_discussion_on_title_change.2C_basic_factual_inaaccuracy_in_the_article I'm mystified as to why you just withdrew from discussing it with me here and then discussed it with me there, but there we are. Jeremy Duns (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (May 2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus reached Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 20:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Operation Golden Eye → Goldeneye (British wartime intelligence unit) – Accuracy - this wasn't an operation. Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose: "Operation Golden Eye" and "Operation Goldeneye" are the two WP:COMMONNAMEs found in the majority of secondary sources. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is the reason the current name is present. In relation to the primary sources, WP:PRIMARY is the reason why we don't base article content or article titles on Primary Sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Move: As stated above, the two WP:COMMONNAMEs "Operation Golden Eye" and "Operation Goldeneye" are the what is found in most sources. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Partial Oppose, Partial Support: Since I suggested this process, I feel compelled to participate. As an initial note, I'm not a Bond expert, I'm not even a World War Two expert, but I have no bias either way in this argument. I have attempted to look through some of the sources available, and I see that there's no real clear consensus among them. The only consensus is that "Operation" should be in the title. For instance, though, one source, which appears to be a more academic work (in other words, less accessible) uses "Operation Golden Eye", whereas the BBC uses "Operation Goldeneye". So, given there's no real consensus in the sources on the split, I did several usual steps: (1) Google Books search reveals 116 hits for "Operation Goldeneye", 87 for "Operation Golden Eye". (2) Primary sources seem to uniformly refer to it at "Goldeneye", (3) Google/Bing searches reveal "Operation Golden Eye" far outweighs "Operation Goldeneye". So, my conclusion is that while "Operation Golden Eye" may be the most numerous name, it appears that "Goldeneye" was used with some greater frequency in the contemporary period, and it also appears that "Operation" is uniformly used today (perhaps it wasn't so at the time of the second World War, but it is possibly used today to differentiate the real Goldeneye from the movie and Fleming's estate) . Therefore, per WP:UCN (keeping in mind that "Ambiguous[4] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources"), I suggest the page be moved to Operation Goldeneye, with a redirect from Operation Golden Eye. Cdtew (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Post-script: Jeremy and Schro, may I also suggest that, since this looks like it is on its way to ending in "Consensus: No Move", perhaps the two of you and SonOfThornhill could agree to a move to "Operation Goldeneye" as a consensus compromise (which is not unwarranted based on the evidence), and that Jeremy be permitted to perhaps discuss the etymology in a discrete section of the article? Cdtew (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise to me SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I agree, and I've already said a couple of times that either "Operation Golden Eye" or "Operation Goldeneye" are both acceptable to me, along with further clarification within the article body. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Question:Cdtew, thanks for the comment. You say 'Primary sources seem to uniformly refer to it at "Goldeneye" or "Operation Goldeneye".' Which primary sources refer to it as 'Operation Goldeneye'? All the ones I know of refer to it as 'Goldeneye', and make it clear it wasn't an operation at all, as does a very reliable secondary source (Martin Gilbert in The Churchill Papers), as I explained below. If there are primary sources referring to it as Operation Goldeneye I think your solution would be a good one - which ones did you have in mind? Thanks, Jeremy Duns (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that should have just said "Goldeneye", and left off the "Operation". Jeremy, what I think you're missing is that, under Wikipedia's "way of doing things", how something was treated in the contemporary period doesn't necessarily control how it was treated in Wikipedia. For instance: the Battle of Bunker Hill, which was, of course, fought on nearby Breed's Hill. At the time, the battle was called varying things (including by the correct hill's name), but over time, based on the historiography around the subject, the current name cemented itself, and therefore Wiki uses that name. Again, whatever Goldeneye may have been in World War II isn't dispositive of what it should be called on this site. The secondary historical references in the article refer to it as an Operation. That can't really be argued about, which is why you're relying on Primary sources. Wikipedia's policies say Secondary generally trumps Primary. That being said, my suggestion was that you can write a discrete section of the article about the origin of the name, and any facts about calling it an "operation" that may be in doubt. I think this is your best possible outcome right now Jeremy, because as it is it looks like you'll lose the RM vote outright. I'm just stepping in trying to mediate. Cdtew (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S: I did check Gilbert, and he refers to it in a footnote as a "liaison delegation", but I for the life of me can't find a definition for what exactly a "liaison delegation" is. Sure, a delegation is a group of persons, but is it a permanent military unit? Is it a temporary group (like a trade delegation)? That title is far, far more confusing than what we have now. Given that Gilbert is the only secondary source to discuss Goldeneye in terms of being a "delegation", and given that literally only 3 Google books results appear for "Goldeneye" & "Liaison delegation", I think Operation Goldeneye is the broad consensus among scholars of the War. If you want to cite to Gilbert, though, be careful, as he states "Golden Eye" as his primary appellation. Cdtew (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for the reply. That's a different argument that the one you just gave! Your suggested compromise was based on something that isn't the case - fine if this were in any primary sources, but this isn't in a single one. And Wikipedia policy doesn't in fact say that secondary sources generally trump primary ones. As you noted, WP:COMMONNAME actually says that inaccurate titles are often avoided 'even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources'. And WP:PRIMARY says primary sources can be used with care if there's a reliable secondary source backing it and it's making 'straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge'. Both of those apply here. I understand the point about the Battle of Bunker Hill, but that was actually a battle! It seems bizarre to continue to refer to this as an operation when it wasn't one. As for Gilbert using both, I explained that below as well, but in the appendix of British codenames in The Ever Widening War on p1722 he refers to this as Goldeneye - as does every primary source but one. I think that suggests using the one word, and explaining that two are sometimes used up top in the entry.

I agree that delegation is a slightly confusing term, which is why I didn't suggest using it in the title. And if you're interested in what it meant I think I made it clear in the explanation below! And could easily do so in the article. But is all this really so complicated as we're making out? In the context of Ian Fleming and the Second World War, any reference at all to Goldeneye can only mean one thing. I suggested adding 'wartime intelligence unit' in brackets, because that's what it was, plus redirects for all searches for 'Operation Golden Eye' and 'Operation Goldeneye', both to clarify it and also to distinguish it from the other entries on Goldeneye, ie the film, the game and Fleming's home. I think if you were looking for info about this and were either redirected to or came across a Wiki entry titled 'Goldeneye (wartime intelligence unit)', you'd know at once it was about this subject. What else could it be? It was in wartime and involved intelligence, and those are both integral to knowing anything at all about this, whether you refer to it as Goldeneye or Operation Goldeneye. Nicholas Rankin and Nigel West both also refer to it as the former, incidentally. But if you know it as Operation Goldeneye, surely you'd just think: 'I thought it was an operatio... Oh, it says right at the top of the article that this redirects from that. And it explains in the very first line that it's sometimes referred to as an operation, and it then makes clear in the next three sentences that it was actually a unit and what it really did. And oooh, it even shows a memo about it from the War Cabinet...' If we leave the title as it is the rest of the article becomes pretty much impossible to edit, because it's discussing this throughout, incorrectly, as if it were an operation. I think the article just needs a brief explanation about what this was, but it has to be one that isn't contradicted in the title - that will just confuse it more, and lead to more people getting it wrong in the future.

I can't quite believe we need to have such a long and involved discussion to make a simple, common-sense change to make this accurate! The policies are clear on this - primary sources can be used if backed by a reliable secondary source (this is) and inaccurate titles are often changed even if more reliable sources use it (as here). Both of those seem perfectly common-sense to me. What on earth is there to be gained by deliberately deciding to use a title that's wrong? What advantage would it have? And are you seriously concerned that people won't be able to figure out that an article about intelligence in wartime with the codename Goldeneye is about this topic? Jeremy Duns (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, let me ask you this: Do any of your secondary sources (or primary sources for that matter) say, explicitly, that Goldeneye was not an Operation? What I'm wrestling with is the fact that you make a compelling argument based on primary sources, but almost every single secondary source dealing with the subject calls it an Operation, thereby making it a common name. Again, I'm trying to mediate here, and you need to realize that you're not on your way to getting a consensus right now. It's in your best interest, then, to come up with a compromise solution, or use the one that I suggested which has already been accepted by SchroCat and SonOfThornhill. Cdtew (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the primary sources explicitly state 'Goldeneye is not an operation', no - but why on earth would they? They do all make it very clear it wasn't one. As explained below, one report refers to a cipher 'from Goldeneye', and then goes into great detail about who was in the delegation, what they were all supposed to do, who liaised with SOE, and so on. Almost every secondary source calls it Operation Goldeneye or Operation Golden Eye, yes, but a few don't. Nicholas Rankin just calls it Goldeneye in his book Ian Fleming's Commandos; Nigel West just calls it Goldeneye in the Historical Dictionary of Naval Intelligence and Martin Gilbert we've been through a few times - he makes it clear it was the British intelligence delegation on Gibraltar, as per all the primary sources.

I appreciate the attempt to mediate, but I don't really see what compromise you're suggesting - I don't think anyone is disputing the one or two-word thing anymore - it's clear that 'Goldeneye' is not just the most common name in secondary sources, but also by a long way in primary ones. I'm suggesting making this accurate by cutting the 'Operation' and calling it Goldeneye, with something in brackets that makes it clear it's about the wartime intelligence Goldeneye, not the Bond film, game or Fleming's Jamaican home, and redirecting to it from searches for those or for anything with Operation. Your compromise suggestion is simply... not to do that! Sorry, but I really don't see the difference between what you're suggesting and what will happen if I fail to get consensus on this anyway. The thing I think we need to change if we're going to edit this article to make it accurate, and describe how it was not in fact an operation, is the part calling it an operation in the title. I'm not sure why I'm apparently the intransigent one here! This is a very obvious and common-sense change to make. What do you think would be the problem changing it, exactly? Do you really think people won't be able to figure out that an article with Goldeneye, wartime and intelligence in the title is about the wartime intelligence topic Goldeneye? The advantage in changing it is obvious - it's accurate, and means we can make the article accurate without any fuss. What's the advantage in keeping it inaccurate? Surely that goes pretty much entirely counter t the idea of an encyclopedia, to deliberately continue to publish material one knows is inaccurate? Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to complicate matters, of all the mentions of Golden Eye in Rankin's book, the Second World War reference is only raised twice: once as "Goldeneye" and once as "Golden Eye". - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite - never as 'Operation Goldeneye' or 'Operation Golden Eye'. Are we really going to discuss the one- or two-word thing again? You've already stated yourself that most secondary sources use one word. You also spotted a primary source that referred to it as two words, but it seems that was the exception - all the other mentions of it at the National Archives are one word. So, as I thought we had already agreed, that part should obviously be changed to what is by a very long margin the most consistent spelling in primary sources and which is very heavily weighed in secondary ones, too, but there should be a short bit in the article stating it has been referred to as both. There should also be a part in the article saying it has often been referred to as an operation. It's easy to do. 'Goldeneye (often referred to as 'Operation Goldeneye' or Operation Golden Eye') was the codename for a British intelligence unit based on Gibraltar during the Second World War...' Followed by a brief description that makes it clear who was in the unit and what they were meant to do. If we keep the title as it is that is going to be very tricky to do, because we'll have to contradict the article. I know this is a little foxy because so many people have got it wrong. But we can get it right! We *know* it's right because the files have been declassified. This is an encyclopedia, so surely we want to make this as accurate as we can, rather than simply repeat errors? The policies you keep citing don't actually recommend doing it! Inaccurate titles are often not used, even if they are more common. For obvious reasons, surely? Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, you're missing my point. Isn't it possible that it could have been known as both? Isn't there a rational basis to believe that Goldeneye could be both the delegation and the overarching operation, in the same respect as "Manhattan Project" is at times used as shorthand for the personnel involved in the project? Cdtew (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's why the confusion has come about in later sources, but no such confusion exists in the primary sources. They go into a lot of detail about who is in this team of people and what their functions are - this guy's coming home, this one stays, and repeatedly refers to it as a delegation or a liaison office. It was the codename for a British intelligence outfit on Gib, and they had links with the War Cabinet and SOE. It simply wasn't an operation. The best way of thinking it is in terms of Fleming's own novels. His fictionalised version of MI6, which he usually called the Secret Service, have 'stations' all over the world. Station T is the MI6 office in Turkey, Station I in Italy, and so on. Station T is not an operation - it's the cover name or loose codename for MI6's HQ there. I've got these documents and didn't really twig this until the debate above, but I've read them very carefully and it's very clear indeed: Goldeneye was the codename, if you like, for a 'Station G' during the war. The Operation bit has become embedded somewhat, so it becomes harder to see. At some point, eventually, someone else is going to work this out and it will be, I hope, corrected in secondary sources. But by keeping it inaccurate we're delaying that, because a lot of people read Wikipedia and they won't be following the sources or thinking about it. If we change it, someone will find it and think, for about 30 seconds, that we've got it wrong. Then they'll read it and realize we've got it right. Secondary sources will follow Wikipedia. That is the way of the world. And that is also th way of encylopedias. The purpose is to provide the facts, not just go 'other people got it wrong so we should'. That's why the policies state what they do, which is that you can use primary sources if they're backed up by a reliable secondary one and are obviously sane, and inaccurate titles are often changed even if they are inaccurate in a lot of otherwise reliable sources. Because it's inccurate and a rather core part of an encylopedia is to strive to be accurate.

How long do I need to carry this on for? If you can't see it, you can't. But changing the title is just an obvious common sense move to make. The article needs to be rewritten, and that can be done pretty fast - but it needs to be rewritten because this wasn't an operation so that all needs tweaking. Can someone please explain to me how that is going to work - and what the actual advantage is in keeping a title we know is wrong? I don't get it. What's the problem here? Are we saying people won't understand what the article is about? The word Goldeneye and an entry about the war will surely make it pretty clear! Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

AH! There's the rub. You fail to see the key purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, being an online encyclopedia anyone can edit, cannot rely on original research as the basis for its information. Instead, it must rely solely on secondary sources and some very limited primary sources that have been widely published in order to craft articles. The issue, therefore, is that you see Wikipedia as the spark that ignites a sea change; unfortunately, Wikipedia is precluded in its most highly-vaunted policies from being the spark, and instead will always be relegated to being a follower to the sources. Because of this, the only advice I can tell you is to go write more outside of Wikipedia -- perhaps you'll be able to write a journal article establishing this point in a reliable scholarly publication -- and then, eventually, Wikipedia could follow your lead. But it's not going to happen the other way around. Cdtew (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand the point about original research fine, because I've actually read that. You really don't seem to have, sorry! You're misrepresenting what the policies actually say. You say Wikipedia 'must rely solely on secondary sources and some very limited primary sources that have been widely published in order to craft articles.' But WP:PRIMARY doesn't actually state any of that. In fact it says Wikipedia can use primary sources as long as care is taken, and says nothing whatsoever about them having to be 'very limited', or even 'limited'. Neither does it say primary sources have to have been 'widely published' - the first word is just your wishful thinking, I'm afraid! The policy actually says that primary source have to have been 'reliably published' and freely available to any educated person. Both clearly apply to files released by the British National Archives. There's no original research at all here - I'm just an educated person who has read the primary sources, as anyone can, and it's obvious from them this wasn't an operation. And I've also read the interpretation in a very reputable secondary source indeed, Sir Martin Gilbert's edition of The Churchill Papers (a much more reliable and scholarly publication than any journal article I could write, I assure you!), and he makes it clear that interpretation of the primary sources is correct, and the article as it stands is wrong. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia should be the spark for original research at all (nor am I doing it - Martin Gilbert says this). I'm arguing that it should follow the most accurate sources available. So do the policies. Why don't you read them in full instead of repeatedly citing them at me? I've read them all. They don't say what you're all claiming they do - quite the opposite. They clearly back my suggestion. So does common sense, surely? I'll ask you for I think the third time: what *advantage* do you think there would be in keeping a title all the primary sources and a very reliable secondary source make perfectly clear is inaccurate? I can't think of any - can you? Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation...Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." <-- This is exactly what you're proposing to do. According to my dictionary, Interpretation is "an explanation of the meaning of something; to conceive the significance of, construe, to translate something; to offer an explanation; to serve as an interpreter." If you don't see that, well, that's why you're in this situation. I would never, in my own editing, attempt to contradict something that is supported by a large number of secondary sources without explicit and direct statements from other secondary sources to the contrary. What I mean by that is not another source calling something a different name -- that warrants a footnote at the most. What I mean is (in this case) I would need a secondary source that says "Based on the primary evidence, it's clear that 'Operation' Goldeneye is a misnomer -- Goldeneye was actually the name for the liaison delegation." It's clear you're now turning your hostility towards me despite the fact that I've been trying to act as the neutral third party; I'll note that this is particularly unhelpful and will not get you anywhere. I expect further comments directed at me show me the same civility as I have attempted to show you. Cdtew (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: 'What I mean is (in this case) I would need a secondary source that says "Based on the primary evidence, it's clear that 'Operation' Goldeneye is a misnomer -- Goldeneye was actually the name for the liaison delegation."' The policy you cite, and common sense, contradict you on this. Martin Gilbert stated this *twice* in his book. Once in an appendix listing all the British codenames, where he states 'Goldeneye: British liaison for Spain, based in Gibraltar.' (p1722) And once in a footnote to a letter Churchill wrote, in which he goes into more detail about some of the terms mentioned in the letter: 'Ballast was the British plan to establish a military force in Spanish North Africa as part of Operation Blackthorn (assistance to Spain in the event of a German occupation of Spain). Golden Eye (also Goldeneye) was the British Liaison Delegation at Gibraltar.' No, he didn't state he knew this from primary sources: it's a given. He's Martin Gilbert and he's editing Churchill's papers. And no, he didn't go on to state that Goldeneye wasn't an operation and other sources had got this wrong - he had no reason to, as he was stating what it was, not what it wasn't - the statement it was a delegation in this authoritative source makes it clear wasn't an operation, just as is clear from any reasonable reading of the primary sources. I haven't construed anything here - it's not an *interpretation* to say that Goldeneye was a delegation on Gibraltar! It's what the primary sources all say, and what Gilbert backs up. Can you really read what Gilbert wrote and have any doubt about this? It's common sense, surely.

WP:PRIMARY says reliably published primary sources can be used, carefully, as long as there's a reliable secondary source backing the interpretation of it. It doesn't say the secondary source can't be a footnote or an appendix or both, or that it has to explicitly refute other secondary source interpretations of it, or anything like that. It says primary source material backed by a reliable secondary source can be used 'to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.' It is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that Goldeneye was the codename for the British liaison delegation in Gibraltar during the Second World War. It's clear from all the primary sources and from an excptionally reliable secondary source, who mentions it twice, and any educated person has access to both that and the primary sources and can see this without any further specialized knowledge. Or are you saying that, having read the National Archives files I gave links for and read Sir Martin Gilbert on this you still think Goldeneye was an operation? Really? Can't we just use common sense here? Or do we have to continue in this bizarre Kafka-esque nightmare over this tiny and perfectly obvious point? Have a look at this page, and how much I have discussed this, and for the most part, how patiently. Have a thorough read of the three policies I cited in the rationale - take half an hour and look at them objectively, not just trying to make them fit your argument to reject my suggestion. Read the actual files in the National Archives. Look at Gilbert again. Finally, apply common sense. Then tell me with a straight face that you still think Goldeneye could possibly have been an operation!

I've been perfectly civil - this has been an extraodinarily long conversation about this surely very minor and common sense point, and you accused me of failing to understand a policy you clearly hadn't read in full yourself. It seems to me you still haven't, but like others in this discussion have continued to wiki-lawyer and cherry-pick the parts you like, precisely as described at WP:GAMETYPE, which this time around has included you introducing some new criteria of your own regarding footnotes. I see you still haven't given any answer to my repeated question about what advantage you think there is in keeping a title we all know is wrong. But then, I also see that SchroCat didn't even bother to answer the long reply I gave to him below countering his preposterous claim that National Archives material can't be reproduced in Wikipedia entries, despite it having been plenty of times before. I think I've been unbelievably patient and civil, considering! And I think I've made my points several times, and very clearly - and fairly - shown how they are supported by the relevant policies. I think there's more than enough to decide this issue on what I've written so far, and I have other things to be getting on with. So I leave it in your hands! Leave the title as it is, despite all the primary sources and an extremely reliable secondary one making it plain it's inaccurate, or change it to something accurate and redirect other searches so the rest of the article can be altered in time. I think it's a pretty simple choice, myself. Jeremy Duns (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again) "preposterous claim"? Not really. The material is under copyright. We do not use it unless it satisfies the free-use criteria. This does not. I have already said that to you, so there is little point in repeating it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not - why is it any different from all the other material I linked to from the National Archives that has been used on Wikipedia? Jeremy Duns (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (again) They chose to release it onto Commons as copyright free. You'll note all those images are posters: they have not released any documents. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I note that some of the images are posters and some are photographs. Do you have a valid reason for stating that they would be more reluctant to release an image of a document than some other form of image? Please read WP:GAME. Jeremy Duns (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, you must learn not to throw baseless accusations at other editors, especially when they are trying to explain how Wiki works, which seems to be something you have not yet got to grips with. I'm going to withdraw my participation again until you see fit to retract. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As you wish. I'm not retracting - it's clear you can't answer the question, and transparent to anyone that you only raised the objection to using the image to be obstructive. Jeremy Duns (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I can answer (and have done so already), but I seriously doubt whether anything I say will be taken on board, so please feel free to ask the experts for their opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't answered it again, and haven't answered it previously. I replied to your previous answer in some depth. I've actually read the policy, not just taken the first couple of lines and presumed it says what you claim, and it's very clear that this image would be usable. You simply keep throwing out policies and procedures at me - most of your tecthniques of fillibustering and wikilawyering are laid out very well at WP:GAME. There is in fact tons of National Archives material on Wikipedia, and this material is no different. You don't understand what Crown Copyright really is - it's a term they use that suggests some form of copyright or restriction, but it's simply to put people off just reproducing everythign without asking, ie on a racist blog or something like that. In reality, TNA always grant sensible requests to use their material provided it's stated that it's from them with the reference number. That's it. It's very simple. It took me one email to check when I did it for my book, and the same would apply here. This material has been declassified by the government and is free to use simply by asking them. As you well know, I think.

Is anyone going to argue that Goldeneye was an operation? Because if we all accept it wasn't one, I think that suggests educated people have reasonably interpreted the primary sources and a reliable secondary one. Jeremy Duns (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'll remind you again to please remain civil to others. In case you are unsure, throwing baseless accusations at others is considered uncivil. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not baseless - it's transparent that this is what you're doing. It's all over this page - the discussions above and below this. It's in the fact that instead of answering any of my points you dodged them and once again chose to resort to this 'please be civil' sidestep again. Sorry, but the tactic is very obvious! Lets try again: what is your actual basis for believing that Wikipedia would not be able to reproduce this particular image when it has reproduced many images from the same source? Can you answer that simple question? Or will you once again dodge it? Jeremy Duns (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing from further discussion. Jeremy, the tragedy of this is that there are options out there for you to compromise with people that have expressed rational reasons for opposing your suggested change, but you refuse to do so because you don't even see them as being rational. Your attacks against me as having "not read" the policies (which are false -- I've read and debated them many times) further turned this into just an absolute useless maneuver. Your career on this site has started off on a bad foot, but I hope that after some time away from this matter and some reflection, you'll see my points. Best of luck in the future -- and by all means, continue writing articles outside of Wikipedia (and on the site, of course). After all, perhaps one day you will write the secondary source that corrects this article (although you should comply with WP:SELFCITE if you make the change). Cdtew (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If I were to publish something on this topic, why would it be able to be cited when Sir Martin Gilbert can't be? Baffling! And I didn't *attack* you. If so, you *attacked* me first, by telling me I'd failed to understand Wikipedia's policy on original research. I think you've failed to understand that policy, as I've shown by directly quoting it to show how it totally contradicts your argument. I see you still didn't answer my question: can you think of a single good reason to keep a title for an article that all primary sources and an exceedingly reliable second source make clear is inaccurate? But you've withdrawn, before answering that, rather like 'SchroCat'. A lot of withdrawing without answering simple questions going on. Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy -- one simple reason. None of your primary sources and the secondary source say that it's not also the name of an operation, whereas a large number (around 116) of secondary sources say there was an Operation. The two aren't mutually exclusive. For further questions, I refer you to WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Good day. Cdtew (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I could say the same about you! The primary sources and Gilbert make it very clear it wasn't an operation - have you looked at them? Do you think there is any ambiguity at all in them? Do you think, having read them, Goldeneye might have been an operation? Really? Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Rationale I'd like to change the title of this article, and some of its content, for accuracy. Goldeneye was one word, not two, and it wasn't in fact an operation but an intelligence unit (or delegation) based on Gibraltar. Unfortunately, most (but not all) secondary sources have got this wrong and a lot of them do call it either 'Operation Golden Eye' or 'Operation Goldeneye'. I propose we rename the article 'Goldeneye (British wartime intelligence unit)' and redirect any searches for Operation Golden Eye or Operation Goldeneye to the page, and also include a brief parenthetical note early on to say it is often referred to in those terms.

My reasoning for this is as follows: the article needs a bit of rewriting to reflect the fact that it was the name of the delegation. This will look silly if it contradicts the title.

WP:COMMONNAME says 'Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.'

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA has some suggested criteria but no rules, but I think they (and common sense) weigh in favour of ditching the inaccurate title and redirecting searches for it to the newly titled one. On the five criteria listed there:

Recognizability: a redirect will solve that, and anyone even vaguely familiar with this topic will recognize 'Goldeneye (British wartime intelligence unit)' as referring to this. It will also distinguish it from the film of the same name, the game, and Fleming's home in Jamaica.

Naturalness: again, redirecting will solve this. And plenty of people do refer to this as just Goldeneye.

Precision: I think this would be both precise and accurate.

Conciseness: it is a bit longer, but I think is still concise enough to clearly convey what this article is about.

Consistency with similar article titles: there aren't any as far as I know, because I think this was a unique set-up during the war. So I don't think this applies.

WP:PRIMARY states: 'Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.'

I'm suggesting we use the primary sources with care. They make it crystal-clear that Goldeneye was a delegation, not an operation. The delegation mostly consisted of British military experts, and as the circumstances of the war changed so did the personnel within it. On March 31 1941, Goldeneye consisted of Major-General Mason McFarlane, a Captain Morgan, a Group Captain Chamberlayne, staff officers of all three armed services, a Chief Operations Executive Officer (the SOE representative) and Staff. This is according to a Joint Planning Staff report from that date, held in the UK National Archives, reference CAB 79/10. You can download the report for free from here: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C387085 The report is on the pages numbered 160 and 161 in the top-right-hand corner of that file and it deals with the information in 'Telegram G 1028 cipher 25/3 from "Goldeneye"'. The report indicates that a couple of those people were to be replaced, and there is more about that in subsequent files, such as CAB 80/27, from April 8 1941, which noted that as part of the delegation's work had been done some of its members would return home, with a nucleus of the delegation remaining on Gibraltar. That can also be downloaded for free, from here: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9196531 It's on the pages marked 103 and 104 in the top right-hand corner. The memorandum ends 'Inform S.O. Force H. and GOLDEN EYE.' Obviously, one can't inform an operation of something in this way, any more than one can receive a ciphered telegram from an operation - but one can inform an intelligence outfit, and one can receive a ciphered telegram from it.

This isn't a controversial interpretation of the primary documents in any way, and it has been backed by a very reliable secondary source indeed: in The Churchill War Papers: The Ever Widening War vol 3, the editor Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill's biographer and one of the most widely respected WW2 historians there is, states: 'Goldeneye: British Liaison Delegation for Spain, based in Gibraltar.' (p1722) He made the same point on page 456 in a footnote to a letter Churchill wrote in 1941 about the possibility of closing down Goldeneye. A lot of other sources, some reliable and some not, have admittedly got this wrong. So have we. There's probably a link between those two facts: Wikipedia is an extremely influential source, and many journalists and authors often use it as a starting point for their research, and some go no further. So the longer this article inaccurately claims Goldeneye was an operation, the more secondary sources will cite it erroneously, and we will simply be helping to cement this inaccurate information. But if we change it, fewer secondary sources will state this in future.

I'm suggesting using the primary sources with care to make 'straightforward, descriptive statements of facts', and those facts 'can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge'. Any educated person has access to these sources, and can tell with no specialized further knowledge from reading them that this was a delegation, as repeatedly and clearly described in them.

As the primary sources are now public government documents, I'd guess there's also a way we could even reproduce one of the memos about it, or an excerpt, in the article as an image. They're rather fascinating and fun to see.

Apologies for length, and if I have formatted this incorrectly here - I'm new. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have altered the formatting slightly, because I originally replied without seeing the section with your rationale below the move request. The key question here I suppose, is "Operation Golden Eye" an inaccuracy or a misnomer? The distinction here is that if it were referred to as "Goldeneye" internally and revisionism later changed it to "Operation Golden Eye" then the later sources have introduced an inaccuracy, in which case I support the move. If it were referred to as "Operation Golden Eye" internally at the time despite not being an operation then that would be a misnomer, and in which case I would not support the move. Is there concrete evidence in regards to its name at the time? I notice here it is labelled "Golden Eye" so there seems to be a lack of consistency over whether it is one word or two words. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I allowed to reply to this? I'm not quite sure of the procedure here! Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion section is for informal discussion, so editors can ascertain facts before presenting an opinion in the survey. I guess what I am asking, you are obviously going to supply sources that back up your stance for Goldeneye but have you come across any contemporary records that refer to it as Operation Golden Eye? Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I haven't seen any contemporary records that refer to it as Operation Golden Eye or calling it an operation in any other way. The context also makes it very clear it wasn't one. One way to think of it, if you know Fleming's novels, is that 'Goldeneye' was more like the codename for a 'Station G'. I didn't want to make the above too long, but if you scroll up on this Talk page to the 'Name' section you'll see the other point you addressed there (if you ignore the rather sharp tone both SchroCat and I are using toward each other and just focus on the actual substance!). The delegation was never referred to internally as an operation in any primary source I've read - I haven't read them all as some are in folders you need to either visit Kew to see or pay to have copied, and checking every one of these would take ages and cost a fortune to do. But I've read all the summaries I could find and two of the actual reports in full, having downloaded them from the National Archives' site. There *was*, as SchroCat spotted and you've just referred to, some internal inconsistency as to whether the delegation was codenamed 'Goldeneye' or 'Golden Eye'. Churchill also called it Golden Eye in a memo, in fact, though Gilbert notes in his editing of the papers that it had both spellings. But apart from that memo and the report you've linked to, CAB 80/27/28, all the other primary sources I can find say this was one word. Those sources are the following six National Archives files:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C387085

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C4123380

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9166692

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9166695

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?Uri=C9190702

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C9190706. I

As I also noted above, apart from this predominance in the primary documents about it, there's another common sense reason for presuming the most common spelling was one word: Ian Fleming named his house in Jamaica after this, and you'd have thought he'd have known how it was spelled. He, too, spelled it as one word. I'm happy to answer any other questions, of course. Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: "a way we could even reproduce one of the memos about it, or an excerpt, in the article as an image": that is highly doubtful. The documents will still be covered by crown copyright and will therefore be WP:UNFREE. As text documents an image of the document, rather than selective quotes from it, adds little to the understanding of the topic. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. It's hard to describe without seeing it, but I think the top third of one of the memos from March 1941, which is stamped 'TO BE KEPT UNDER LOCK AND KEY', 'WAR CABINET', 'S E C R E T' and a lot of that sort of thing, then 'GOLDENEYE' and 'Report by the Joint Planning Staff' and the first few lines of the report would show the purpose of the outfit very clearly but would also give much more atmosphere than simply quoting it in the body: it's a classic crackly old secret memo, and this Bond fan anyway got a tiny bit of a thrill seeing the word 'GOLDENEYE' at the top of it in this way when I downloaded it a couple of months ago for another reason. As I say, it's hard to explain without seeing it, but I think it would make more of an impact than just quoting it.

As to your other point, I reproduced a declassified National Archives document in one of my novels and didn't have to pay them anything - they confirmed that I simply had to acknowledge they were the source of it and give the document reference number, in line with the guidelines posted on their website: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/crown-copyright.htm What's your reason for believing they charge? Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting "a tiny thrill" is not a sufficiently good reason to show it in an encyclopaedia. As for WP:UNFREE, this is nothing to do with money. You will need to read the policy on which images we are and are not able to put into articles. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

:) That isn't the only reason I gave - the document itself gives a sense both of the time and atmosphere that you can't get from simply quoting it. A good example of this is the use of a page of the primary source on the entry Operation Northwoods. Another benefit of doing this would be that by showing part of the primary source on the page you immediately prove the primary source exists and the article's assertions about it correct, and readers don't need to go looking to find it. I think it's also common sense that if you're interested enough in Goldeneye to look it up on Wikipedia you are likely to be interested in what a page of a secret memo about it from 1941 looked like. Sometimes research can be informative and thrill at the same time! But it was only a suggestion, and not the main one under discussion.

I've had another look at WP:UNFREE and still don't know what you mean. Even if non-free (and I don't see how), points 8 and 9 in the section on acceptable images both apply here. Which part of it do you think would be a problem for an image from the UK National Archives? As far as I know from having cooperated with them previously, they don't have any restrictions on the right 'to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use' any of their material. And if they do, why then is Wikipedia already using their material?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_National_Archives_UK_-_CO_1069-1-5.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_National_Archives_UK_-_CO_1069-5-107_cropped.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Accra_-_New_bungalows_on_the_ridge_1915.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clarke_with_limpet_mine_in_swimming_position.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_National_Archives_UK_-_WORK_25-208.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_Brown_official.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tessa_Jowell.jpg

Would you mind explaining how the National Archives' stated policies both on their website and in the 'Licensing' section for all those pages conflict with WP:UNFREE? The UK National Archives has also cooperated directly with Wikipedia to upload a lot of their material:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/724.htm

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/teachers/social-media.htm

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:War_art_in_The_National_Archives_%28United_Kingdom%29

So why is this particular National Archives material problematic?

Incidentally, regarding your comment in the 'Survey' section, I suggest you reread WP:COMMONNAME, which contrary to your comment doesn't in fact state that a title must be the one found in the majority of secondary sources and specifically says that inaccurate names for article subjects 'are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources'; WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which doesn't give any criteria for keeping an inaccurate name, and isn't a set of rules anyway; and WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't state that article content or titles shouldn't be based on primary sources, as you claim, but in fact says it's fine to as long as care is taken, there is a reliable secondary source backing the interpretation of them, and that they're used to make 'straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge'. All of these apply here, and I made these very comments above. You've cited these pages several times, but you don't seem to have read them in full. WP:GAME discusses the dangers of 'selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy', and WP:WL the danger of thwarting common sense. I think the rationale for the changes I've suggested goes beyond the pedantic parsing of procedures and relies on simply applying common sense, as at WP:COMMON and WP:IAR: it seems perverse to insist on keeping the title of this article as Operation Golden Eye when the declassified government documents about it and a very reliable secondary source state very clearly that it wasn't an operation and wasn't ever called one by those involved in it. Accuracy is the chief priority of any encyclopedia, I think! Jeremy Duns (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? (June 2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Operation Golden Eye → Operation Goldeneye

– As per talk page consensus, correct name is Operation Goldeneye, not Operation Golden Eye. Please note, this is a reversion of my own re-naming. SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that we also already have a recent consensus for this. - SchroCat (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.