Talk:Licence to Kill

Title concern

• Why it the title Story not right It sounds better than plot. Whitmore 8621--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds better? That's why you want to change every article that used plot? Eeekster (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes whats wrong with that? Whitmore 8621--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the existing consensus is to use "Plot" or "Plot summary". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries, Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I did not know that I apologize for my disruptions or trouble? Whitmore 8621--Whitmore 8621 (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well every contributor must obey Wikipedias policies and rules. Plot or Plot Summary is preferred over Story as it says in the Consensus. Kennedy, 007--Kennedy, 007 (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I changed Story to plot summary for The Living Daylights and it has been done for Quantum of Solace and Casino Royal. Kennedy, 007--Kennedy, 007 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

'Controversial'?

Does anyone else think that the opening paragraph description of this film as 'controversial' because it performed relatively poorly at the box office and it was Timothy Dalton's last appearance is dubious? These points may make it notable, but not controversial. 206.165.150.70 (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BOX OFFICE When talking aout the box office performance of 'Licence to Kill', I think more specific mention should be made about it's international perofrmance. The article gives the tone that it was a box office failure, yet with over $156 million worldwide it was the 11th highest grossing film that year (6th highest in international markets) http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?order=worldwide&start=1989&finish=1989&keyword=Trevwiki (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)trevwiki

Peer review

I've cleaned up some of the writing, and I moved a section about the film's certificates from the Production section to the Release section, since this is essentially a distribution issue rather than a production one. On the same issue I think the second paragraph of the lead is wholly inappropriate. Generally we only focus on global performance in the lede since focusing on one or two countries gives undue weight to them, and by the same token we don't cover classification certificates in the lead either because they vary form country to country (accounting for Licence to Kill's global gross, this information isn't relevant to two thirds of its audience).

Apart from that the article is well written, and fairly well balanced, although I think it focuses slightly too much on its under-performance in the United States. Its foreign receipts seem to be pretty much on par with the other Bond films of its era, so perhaps we can address that to balance the box office reception bit.

I was focusing on neutrality today, so I'll check through the sourcing tomorrow to make sure that is in order. Betty Logan (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• The sources look ok, apart from two or three minor issues. I've run a webcite too so we don't lose the online ones. I think the bib needs trimming of books that we don't actually reference in the article, but I presume that will be addressed in due course. The article looks in good nick, but I think we should hold back on a GA nomination until FYEO passes, since there are a couple of issues that could have wider implications for the Bond articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is still the issue of box office neutrality. I think we need to put its US underperformance into perspective (i.e. its international performance was still strong, so it was still perceived as a success in most countries). I notice an editor in the section above has highlighted this issue too, so it is something that definitely has to be fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on the box office tomorrow (perhaps later today) and once that is done go on to the re-do the lead properly. I agree about letting FYEO get through the somewhat tortuous process it is involved in before setting this one off, but good to get it close enough to press the button as soon as... - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I was a bit worried on Saturday that maybe I had derailed the GA review, but I was pretty concerned about his request to add metrics that most box office analysts even reject. The review seems to be going more like an FA review than a GA review, but if someone gives us a tough ride then really we should just embrace that as an opportunity to improve the article even further. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree - and it'll have an effect on this and NSNA immediately as well - as well as possibly on some of the others we have already done. If anyone reviews some of the other articles they could also lose their status - there are some weak articles in the canon too! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've sorted the biblio now, so everything that is there is used (although it looks rather thin now!) I've re-worked the returns section to highlight it was only a US problem with the film. (The three FNs 35, 36 & 40 all point to the three different markets, so we'll have to watch that they are not grouped together at some point) Have a look over it and if you don't like what I've done, then feel free to change as much as you want. I'll have a crack on with the Lead tomorrow, which looks as if it should be okay with some decent editing. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead also now re-written. Again, feel free to re-write what I've put in there if you don't like it. I think we're about ready to go on this one now (once FYEO gets the go-ahead). You'll see I started putting Dr. No through the FA process: I'm not sure it'll get that far, but I like what we did to it and the review process will only improve the standard of the article as a whole. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"The review seems to be going more like an FA review than a GA review". That's Tony the Tiger. He treats GAR like a FAR. Not a bad thing if the article is ever to be nominated for FA but yes agreeably a frustrating and time-consuming one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM Assessment

After a request was left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have reviewed this article and assesseed it as B-class. I went through and made several edits, please review them for accuracy, and implement them for any future Bond articles. A lot of duplication of the names were present, use a summary style of using just the last name if it is duplicated a section or two later. In the novelization section, it mentions a "44-four" book, I wasn't sure if this should have been "44-page" or "444 page", so I'll let the editors here correct that. Again, good work on improving these Bond films. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming GA Review

Hi, I will not have internet access next week (until Oct 2nd), but I will sort out any issues you may have from that time on. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Licence to Kill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs · count) 13:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Ew, Dalton. If it's not View to a Kill, I'm not sure if I care... :P

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Just minor fixes.
   "the Eon Productions James Bond series" -> Could be wrong, but I think "James Bond" should be italicised here as a title. If it's not commonly italicised then don't worry about it.
   "Japanese Rōnin tales." -> "rōnin" is not a proper noun, use a lower case r.
   "the MI6" -> The organisation is just referred to as "MI6", no "the". Granted, I've not seen the films, if it's called "the MI6" in dialogue then keep it that way, but if it's ever mentioned in the news here it's without any "the".
   You're using spaced em dashes as parentheticals here ("word — word"). You're using European spellings ("colour", "armourer") so you might want to use spaced en dashes ("word – word"), which see use in British typography, or you could use unspaced em dashes ("word—word"), which are a bit more universal, but spaced em dashes should be avoided.
   Is the "the" in "The Bahamas" capitalised? As I understood it, it's not capitalised in "Commonwealth of the Bahamas" but I don't know if it is or not when using the shorter name. Don't worry about changing it, as I'm mostly just curious.
   You don't actually explain who Della is in the plot. I know it's not vital but I had to scroll down to the cast section to find out. A quick aside when she's first mentioned wouldn't hurt.
   "Sanchez's scientists can dissolve cocaine in gasoline" -> I'd lose the wikilink in "dissolve", as it makes a reader assume at first that "dissolve cocaine" might link to a specialist article. I'd also use "petrol" instead of "gasoline" since you've already used British spelling in the article. Same goes for the later mention of "trucks" (use "lorries").
   "Robert Davi suggested the line "Loyalty is more important than money", which he felt was fitting to the character of Franz Sanchez, whose actions were noticed by Davi to be all regarding betrayal and retaliation." -> Lower case L for "loyalty", and change "to be all regarding betrayal" to "to be concerned with betrayal".
   "Sixteen 18 wheeler trucks were used" -> The word and numeral mix seems off here. Try "Sixteen eighteen-wheeler" instead.
   "Initially Vic Flick, who had played lead guitar on Norman's original 007 theme" -> Norman who?
   "Corliss also found Dalton "misused" in the film, adding that "for every plausible reason, he looks as bored in his second Bond film as Sean Connery did in his sixth"" -> Should that be "found Dalton was "misused" in the film"?
   "among the reviewers listed in "Top Critics" the score is 50% out of 8 reviews." -> "out of eight reviews"

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Citations are grand, used well and nothing is left unsupported.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope is good, not too wide or narrow.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History seems stable and uncontroversial.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are tagged with solid rationales. However, I'm not entirely sure we actually need File:LicenceToKillNovel.jpg. The rationale is very solid but since there's not very much written on the subject I don't really think it's that necessary.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A very solid article that just needs a few polishes to pass. The fixes mentioned in the 1A section above should really be all that needs to be addressed, so I'm putting this on hold for now. GRAPPLE X 13:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed those (also, apparently it's capitalized), anything else? igordebraga ≠ 23:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Going to pass it now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 23:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing and themes

With regards to the comparison with Live and Let Die: "close similarity between the villain of the book, Kananga, and Licence to Kill's main villain Sanchez", Kananga is not a character in the novel and was only created for the film. The only villain in the novel is Mr. Big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.187.62 (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are very right on that! I've changed the text to make the distinction between the book elements and the film elements. Thanks for pointing it out: much appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To the user starting a revert war

User:Schrodinger's cat is alive has repeatedly removed sentences in the article that simply state what can be seen in the film. The user claimed that "according to" WP:SOURCES those sentences were unsourced. This betrays an extremely poor understanding of Wikipedia policy and especially of the purpose of Wikipedia policy. The reason why Wikipedia references sources is to improve reliability, i.e. to improve article accuracy and avoid falsehoods or bias or unverifiable information in articles. It is understood that by referencing generally reliable sources for anything remotely questionable, it is made harder for inaccuracies, slant or plain falsehoods to creep in. However, when the article subject is itself a published work, then that work is a source on itself. In the article on e.g. Gray's Anatomy it is possible and necessary to source Gray's Anatomy. Not for interpretation, but certainly for what is plainly, obviously in it. Which is why Wikipedia:Verifiability approves of "summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources" and says that "it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." Yes, true, any claims as to the interpretation of the meaning of what's in the published work would need to be reliably second-sourced. If there were a claim that something in this work meant X, then it would be important to find a reliable second source that it actually does. But with simple factual observations that include no interpretation, requiring an additional source that inevitably only refers back to the primary source actually decreases accuracy: You don't need to rely on the Chinese whispers of "he said that she said that this is in there" in order to support something that is directly and explicitly in the primary source. Citing an additional source for a non-interpretative statement that only the article subject can be the authoritative source for decreases accuracy. Introducing an additional source that only refers back to the primary source just introduces an additional hoop to jump through, and while jumping through such hoops, inaccuracies can creep in. Seeing the VideoWriter in the film doesn't require interpretation. It just requires the gift of sight. If User:Schrodinger's cat is alive still wants to excise the information after reading this, then he should get an administrator, because if User:Schrodinger's cat is alive still thinks it's proper to revert after this, then frankly an administrator is needed. 31.18.250.227 (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not starting a "revert war" as you put it and I strongly resent the implication that I am. What I am doing is ensuring that this article only contains information that is correctly sourced. Your edits are not sufficiently well sourced to stand up on their own. Shall we have a proper look at what WP:SOURCES says? "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I have not asked for you to source it back to the film itself, but—as my edit summary requested—a "reliable, independent secondary source to back it up". If the fact is deserving of being included in the article, then it would have been noteworthy to be commented on somewhere. In which case find it and include it. Now, apart from that fact that the information you've added is so tangential to the article that it's almost pointless having it there at all, is also open to question. You have said that there is a "Magnavox VideoWriter" and an "LV-ROM". Does the film specifically state that the two machines are being used? If not then it is liable to be challenged (in fact, I'll challenge it here and now) and, as there isn't an inline citation, then it can't be verified. You've said that this equipment is "very rare". WP:POV, I think. Can you quantify the rareness of it? Is there a source that says it's rare? No? Then take it out. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't identify product placement just for the sake of identifying it as per WP:NOTADVERTISING, unless there is an encyclopedic motivation to include it. While you are correct that the film itself can serve as a source for identifying this equipment, secondary sources are required as per WP:UNDUE to establish its relevance to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

"Sets afire"? Ouch. That's just poor English.... and the second part of the sentence is now also weaker. That's not beneficial editing. You're at 4RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"sets X afire" is proper English, and can be found in any dictionary. Now, "blows him up" - with what? Helium? Hydrogen? "Causes to explode" is more accurate for what happens in that scene. And 4RR - what does that mean? Is that a warning? A threat? DiogenesNY (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "proper English", or even correct English. Actually, the first version you altered ("...and immolates Sanchez"), was also correct, as is the current version ("...sets fire to Sanchez"). As to 4RR, it was a statement of fact: you may interpret it how you please. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to SchroCat - and as further comment to DiogenesNY - yes, it is a warning. The concept or edit warring, and 3RR are clearly outlined here - Diogenes has met 3RR, so it is appropriate to issue a warning, in case the other editor is not aware of the limitations. However, strictly speaking Diogenes is only at 3RR not 4RR as their first edit was a change, not a reversion. Even so, in case you're still in any doubt - stop reverting as I now warn you - you're at 3RR, and blocks may be issued if you continue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

1) The verb "to set afire" has been an English verb since the 13th century, making it "proper English" since the time of Middle English; furthermore, a basic Google search sees it used in publications such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and even the Times of India - publications that would be expected to use "correct English". 2) "Sets fire to Sanchez" is a proper replacement, which is why I didn't modify it. "Immolate", however, is not a proper replacement, as that verb requires (by definition) that the victim die as a result of the fire. Sanchez, though aflame, was still alive when he stumbled into the wreckage of the tanker, causing the gasoline to explode and killing him. 3) "To blow up" has five major definitions, chief of which is "to inflate by force of wind"; "to explode" is fourth. Why use a verb that can mean "to explode", among other definitions, when "to explode" could be used just as well? 4) I tend not to use abbreviations - one could say, "You are in violation of the Three Revision Rule", and not leave the recipient guessing what 3RR (or 4RR) means. DiogenesNY (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

1) Yes, and it's been out of common use for some time too, at least in British English; 2) yes, you did; 3) Because the meaning is blindingly obvious in the context and has the advantage of being easier on the eye to read; 4) If you know what the "Three Revision Rule" is, and you've been involved in serial reverting, or edit warring, then 3RR is fairly obvious. If it wasn't, it should be now, for future reference. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

4) Given that you've been an editor since 2006, it's not unreasonable to assume that you are familiar with at least some of Wikipedia's policies, including 3RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

1) "Out of common use" does not make it improper or incorrect English; also, if the newspapers are still using it, is it truly "out of common use"? 2) Touché on that revision, but "immolate" is still an improper verb choice. 3) Remember that we're dealing with the Bond franchise, in which villains have been blown up with air (Dr. Kananga in the film version of "Live And Let Die") and blown up by the effects of air (Milton Krest in this film). "Explode" remains the more accurate verb. 4) Yes, I've been an editor since 2006 - and this is the first time I've had someone invoke the Three Revision Rule on me; I had to look it up once Chaheel Riens showed me what the acronym meant. DiogenesNY (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

PG-13 in America

With regard to the edits here, I think this is a valid insertion. It's all well and good to class America as a "non-domestic release country", but we're not talking about Lithuania or The Grand Duchy of Fenwick here, rather one of the most influential entertainment countries in the world. Changing the rating for a Bond film will have essentially changed the target audience for the film by millions of potential viewers.

Also, I think that if we're going to comment that Bond was given a darker portrayal, it's reasonable (even in the lede) to give an example of the results of that intepretation, especially (as noted above) given the cultural, geographical and financial influence of the country in question.

And finally, I (again) think it's reasonable to include an American opinion in the lede regardless of the country of origin, especially when the preceding sentence says that "The film earned over $156 million worldwide", using the American denomination. Although a quick glance through Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film) states that "Provide a summary of the film's commercial performance (box office grosses), denominated in the film's national currency, if possible.", so that's possibly an error in the article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree fundamentally with the insertion, but RL intervenes at the mo. I've dropped a note on BettyLogan's page for her to also comment. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The relevant part of the MOS is at WP:FILMRATING. Basically we don't include ratings about any film unless there is something particularly unusual about it i.e. Midnight Cowboy being the ony X-rated oscar winner, or the NC-17 certificate being a part of Showgirls' marketing strategy. The UK 15 certificate is possibly notable for Licence to Kill because it's the only Bond film where young children have effectively been excluded in that country; certificates like PG/PG-13, 12/12A are run of the mill for James Bond films. Basically there has to be a reason for mentioning the rating other than just for the sake of mentioning it. One recent example I can think of is Skyfall picking up a children's rating in many countries despite including an occurrence of the word "fuck", so it's that sort of thing we consider. Ultimately though we don't list age ratings—not even the UK age rating—unless there is a bigger story attached. As for currencies this is covered at MOS:CURRENCY. If we are talking about earnings in any one particular country we should use the currency of that country if possible (i.e. pounds for UK, euros for Europe, dollars for the US etc) especially if a record is involved, since a converted figure may not be a record. For worldwide sums we should use a global reserve currency; in this case that would be the US dollar, the euro or the British pound, and since most box-office tracking services report the global figures in dollars then it's convenient for us to do so too since we don't have to convert. In truth I've never seen a book or a website list the international figures in pounds, most likely because the distributor is American and always converts the figures to dollars. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over the word 'raped'

There has been some recent re versions and warring on this article by an editor who has been advised by several people to use the article talk page, but who has refused to do so. To overcome their initial complaint, I have - in line with MOS:PLOT - added a cited to support the description. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edit reversions are bad faith after I took this dispute to DRN and an editor offered to moderate it but you refused. Secondly, rape or sexual assault never occurred in the movie nor was it ever mentioned. That is a fact and Your citation is a an opinion....William 19:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous other sources too. All is in line with MOS:PLOT. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are all opinions. As for MOS PLOT it reads- "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work. For example, we cannot state anything about whether the top remains spinning or topples at the end of Inception. Even small details that might be clear on a word-by-word or frame-by-frame analysis - steps well beyond the normal act of reading or watching a work - should be considered original research and excluded from such articles....William 14:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, is this little bit of plot (sourced or unsourced) important enough for a short plot summary? DonQuixote (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It provides part of the rationale for Bond's subsequent reaction: the revenge mission. Somehow, and this is just a personal feeling, just reporting her as murdered, rather than the "raped and murdered" doesn't seem to do it justice. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think referring to the rape is an interpretation, since it is pretty clear from the sequence of events that is what happens. Dario admits to raping her with a euphemism, and to hammer the point home Bond discovers Della's body on the bed with her wedding dress hiked up and her legs spread open. There is no real doubt that a rape occurs given that the director goes to great lengths to imply what has occurred. Obviously we don't see it happen because there is a limit to what you can show in a film children are admitted to. Ultimately the plot summary is exactly that: a summary of the plot, not a screen captioning service, so we summarise the story and Della's rape and death is an important plot development in that capacity. For that matter we don't actually see Della killed either, but no-one seems to have a problem with saying she is killed. I do think William has a point though about making it clear we don't actually see the rape and murder so perhaps we can re-word the summary slightly to make that clearer:

Meanwhile, Sanchez's henchman Dario and his crew ambush Leiter and his wife Della. They take Leiter back to Sanchez and he is maimed by a great white after Sanchez drops him into a shark tank. When Bond learns Sanchez has escaped, he returns to Leiter's house to find Leiter barely alive and that Della has been raped and killed; Bond swears to take his revenge on Sanchez.

It doesn't have to be that word for word, but you get the gist; try and make it clear in the summary that we learn of Della's fate after it has happened. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute regarding the wording of this sentence:

• Leiter is maimed by a great white shark and Della is raped and killed

One editor wants the word 'raped' in the sentence. The other one want's it removed. The sentence is sourced to a book called, The politics of James Bond page 152. The source says:

• His new wife, Delia, is raped and killed.

I have two reactions. A) why does the WP says 'Della' when the sources says 'Delia'? B) MOS:PLOT says:

• The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, do not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible.

So using sources for a plot summary is encouraged and on that basis I don't see any reason to object to having the word raped in the sentence. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, I see "Della" in the source from Google Books (and my hard copy too): which edition of the book are you looking at? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops my mistake. The source says Della. Too much coffee I guess :-) [1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does the plot mention that Della is raped and killed? Sexual violence/rape is not associated with the James Bond franchise. Rape is non-consensual sex and sex is generally associated with love (love and sex), not with hate and violence. If you don't like someone, would you want to have sex with them?109.151.65.218 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You've said this before. The trouble is, you're making a moral statement, and a somewhat nonsensical one at that, but you're not indicating how you wish your statement to be applied to the article - not least the fact that you're not providing any sources to back up your own rather unique interpretation of "Rape" and "Sex" Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I say that Della was just killed (or beaten, tortured and killed).109.151.65.218 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

no part of Licence to Kill was filmed in the UK ??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing off: repeated incivility by the IP, despite requests to the contrary. Time to drop the stick and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

"The associated rising costs to Eon Productions meant no part of Licence to Kill was filmed in the UK" Isn't in the movie a short "establishing shot" of the "Universal Export" sign (the hidden bureau of the secret service here) at a street building in London? Even when this shot wasn't filmed especially for "Licence to Kill" (it could be recycled material from "The Living Daylights" for example), it still would be a part of "Licence to Kill" that was filmed in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.180.241 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"could be"etc isn't strong enough. That would be original research: we go by what the published sources tell us, and reflect that. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

actually you miss the point: it is here not about the question where the material is from - it is about the fact that "Licence to Kill" has a small part in it that was filmed in the UK. You do not need a source to discover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.45.94.241 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. 1. Was there a such a scene showing the nameplate?; 2. If there was, was it filmed 'fresh' for the film, or was it a library copy?; 3. If it was filmed, where was it done? You don't have any thing that answers any of those points, and so we can't enter any of it into the article. What we do have, are several sources that say nothing was filmed in the UK at all, and we always go by what the published sources tell us, not what we think may or must or could have happened. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a sneaky guess: You have to watch the movie. The argumentation in the source is "no filming in Pinewood = no filming in the UK". But when there is material in the movie, that was filmed downtown London, it is clear that a part of the movie was filmed in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.180.241 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You've dodged a whole stack of questions there which go to the nub of the point. Guess what: we're still going with the what the sources say - see WP:WHYCITE and a stack of other pages which say we rely on the sources, and not our own OR or POV. And despite having lived in London for most of my life, I have no idea where "downtown London" is supposed to be. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you totally addicted to sources? And when a source says jump out the window? Btw: Here you have several sources: Because you were not able to watch the movie properly and you have no idea what London looks like, one put even pictures from the movies in it that feature the Old War Office Building: http://jamesbondlocations.blogspot.de/2011/12/mi6-headquarters-old-war-office.html http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/l/LicenceToKill.html "Before MI6 went public with its attention-grabbing Vauxhall Cross HQ, the movies saw the secretive organisation operate out of various buildings around Westminster, where the prime requirement for the intelligence services seems to be a clear view of Nelson’s Column. In Licence To Kill, Bond’s HQ is the Old War Office Building, Whitehall." Do you even own the DVD of Licence to Kill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.45.94.241 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please try and keep some civility in the conversation. Sources? Yes I am addicted to them: they are what keeps the good bits of Wikipedia free from fan trivia, fluff, and the downloading of blogs, personal opinions and original research. Our policies (see WP:SOURCE) are clear: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Souring is so important it is in the DNA of Wikipedia in the form of our WP:FIVEPILLARS: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, ... Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong". Yes, I have the DVD, yes I have the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The movie contains this shot: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RdeHm8XICCM/TuZUM0WORoI/AAAAAAAAARE/XfzWzI7UTXY/s400/Whitehall+license2.jpg So a part of the movie was filmed in the UK. The source is the movie itself. Wikipedia is defintive not about telling you rubbish from a source, when it's obvious for everyone, who watches the movie that this is just not true. "Yes, I have the DVD" So are not able to recognize this shot? What is wrong with you? Btw: You will also read it on IMDB, a source many, many times used here on Wikipedia: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/locations. IMDB as source can you even find below this Licence to Kill article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.45.94.241 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also read about reliable sources, which eschews the use of blogs in general and IMDB (specifically). Once again, do not be uncivil in your discussions with others: "What is wrong with you?" is not acceptable - please comment on the content not the contributor. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not an answer to my question - Why are you not able to see this shot of London in “Licence to Kill”? Are you now too afraid to excuse that you are wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.45.94.241 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to comment on me, rather than the content I will close this down and ignore any of your future postings, so please, again, comment on the content not the contributor. As I have already said to you, blogs are not reliable. That scene is not necessrily one from the film, and we do not trust anything from blog sites. They are, inherently, unreliable. If you have a beef with the several reliable sources that back up what we have written in the article, I suggest you write to the publishers or authors and take it up with them. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because you have no arguments, there is not the reason to "close this down", schrocat. Actually he is right: When you watch the movie another time (something you really need to do), there is a shot of London. Conclusion: In the movie IS a part that was filmed in the UK. You really should excuse. Don't ridcule the spirit of Wikipedia by pointing out to wrong sources. The spirit of Wikipedia is also about making up your own mind, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.237.110 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"He" is right? Considering both IP addresses come from the same town in Germany, I think we'ew dealing with one person here who has reset their router to get a new IP address. If I'm wrong on that, then IP 1 has asked a friend to comment on the point. Either way, both courses of action are against policy. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

From just above the edit box: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." So,no, it's not about making up your own mind but summarising what reliable sources have to say. An encyclopaedia is a tertiary source and should not contain the editors' original observations. DonQuixote (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

so IMDB is a source for the Licence to kill cast but not for the Licence to kill locations? That's insahanhane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.172.168 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say IMDB is a source for the cast? (It doesn't, by the way: IMDB isn't used as a source anywhere in the article, as it is inherently unreliable). - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

btw: have you read the news today, oh boy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9547619/James-Bond-film-locations-around-Britain.html?frame=2341754. Even the Telegraph describes Whitehall as a movie location in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.172.168 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Onto our third IP address now? Are you still the same person, or are you pretending to be someone else (or one or both of the previous two) in the conversation? Don't worry about addressing your erroneous comments (as you have throughout): I understand you've misunderstood or misinterpreted how thing work here. As to the above, it still holds that no filming was done in the UK during the production of LTK. And, "oh boy", cut the fucking sarcasm: it's unconstructive, unhelpful, and only ever pisses people off. – SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your cursing with the f-word and your confusing talks about Adresses (??) just shows that there is nothing left for you. Pleeze remember that there is a niveau for discussion here at Wikipedia (as you were in so dire need to mention before). As even the "Telegraph" wrote: Filming of Whitehall was used in Licence to Kill = a part of this movie was filmed in the UK. So the half sentence "no part of Licence to Kill was filmed in the UK" doesn't work any more. It's just a small semantic thing, nothing evil. Is this really so difficult? You got a reliable source now and even NOW you don't get it? But there is one that is really sweet from you: I mean, I am no magician and nor do I work for EON. I just got this information by WATCHING the movie. And there is even a source for that (there are even more, who knows...?) But when you say you lived for YEARS in London and you do not recognize a place like Whitehall by seeing it as a shot in a movie...I am serious with my question and pleeze don't tkae it personal (obviously you easy blow up, when you realize that you are wrong): What have you done all these years in London? 95.116.172.168 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The telegraph source counts for little: sources close to Eon will count for more than a travel journalist, unconnected with the facts, writing over 20 years after the event. As before, stop commenting on other editors: it pisses people off immensely and will only ever end people getting angry with you for being so obnoxious. I've struck the pointless comments in your post: look at them and ask yourself why you decided to go personal and attack someone, despite being asked several times not to. As to you watching the film (it's not a movie: it's British and therefore a film) that is OR. Deal with it. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2014 (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.

actually a part of LTK was filmed in the UK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing off again: repeated incivility by the IP, despite requests to the contrary, and a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Time to drop the stick and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

as seen in the movie a shot of Whitehall was used:

here is the Freeze of the shot that is part of LTK: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RdeHm8XICCM/TuZUM0WORoI/AAAAAAAAARE/XfzWzI7UTXY/s400/Whitehall+license2.jpg

This is even confirmed in "The Telegraph": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9547619/James-Bond-film-locations-around-Britain.html?frame=2341754

and via "Forbes": http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/11/04/james-bond-is-back-10-coolest-places-to-find-007/

btw: schrocat, pleeze stop insulting me via PMs. You are not a stalker. You have to learn to argue here on the board of Wikipedia. Otherwise you will get the impression that you are just trolling around without any interest in this movie.

95.116.172.168 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off and stop calling me a troll. Blogs are unreliable: I've said it several times and you need to start understanding it. The other sources carry less weight than the other sources: journalistic errors are frequent, especially when written over 20 years after the event. It's about balancing and assessing sources, which should be common practice for most education systems. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop using the F-Word. You need to learn to argue, otherwise you will give the perfect impression of a troll. I meanwhile get it with you, we really have to start very simple and low: So, first of all: Telegraph and Forbes are not Blogs. 95.116.172.168 (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to call me a troll, or any other insult, I will continue to tell you to fuck off. I will also tell you to fuck off if you try and patronise me again, like you have above. You not listening and banging the same arguments, despite brings being explained to you is more akin to that behaviour. You are not reading what has been said, and I am unsure whether this is deliberate, or whether you just don't understand. I will be simple, so that you can follow.

1. There are a few sources that say no filming took place in the UK. This includes the Eon-written and produced Bond Encyclopeadia.

2. Lazy-arsed travel journalists writing over 20 years later, and basing their "research" on inaccurate sites like IMDB, came a long way behind that source.

3. It is common in academia to weigh the reliability of sources, much like I have shown you in steps 1 and 2.

Now, guess which sources of information we're going to rely on here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have the impression you just use this board just to troll around and insult other users with the f-word. You even wrote me PMs that had the F-Word in. You are pointing at world famous newspapers/magazines that won many prices. But you can not even spot Whithall in a movie after living sveral years in London? All you can bring up are your own conspiracy theories about the working habits of journalists - without any proof, without any source. Have you at least meanwhile understood that Telegraph and Forbes are no blogs? I mean that is so sad here: we really have to start at zero. 95.116.172.168 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2014 (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.

Questionable word

In the plot, why does it say that Della is raped and killed by the bad guys. There is no rape scene and it's not even mentioned. That word 'raped' should be removed. Sexual violence is not associated with the James Bond franchise. It's aimed at a family audience (adults and children). There are toys and video games of it. In general, sex is associated with love and attraction, not with hate. Violence dwells on pain and injury, not on sex. If you don't like someone, would you want to have sex with them? It should say that Della is killed.86.144.110.160 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that you are quite obviously the same user as 109.151.65.218 - as shown by your geolocate 109.151.65.218 and 86.144.110.160 - you already know the answer. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional - I see you've also asked the same question over at Lois Lane, and I have to say that @DonQuixote:'s reply there is admirably suited to this article as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that Della is shot, dead.86.149.82.141 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Please! Stop adding the word 'raped'. I told you before. There is no rape scene and it's not even mentioned. Sexual violence is not associated with the James Bond franchise. It's aimed at a family audience (adults and children). There are toys figures and video games of it. In general, sex is associated with love and attraction, not with hate. Violence dwells on pain and injury, not on sex. If the bad guys don't like Della, why would they want to have sex with her?81.97.79.145 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed above at #Edit warring over the word 'raped'. The purpose of the plot summary is to convey the plot, not to literally relay just what we see on screen. There is no ambiguity here: we see Della sprawled on the bed with her wedding dress hiked up and her legs spread open. Dario also comments to Felix that he gave her a "nice honeymoon". The rape is strongly implied, and the only reason we don't see it actually happen is because this is a PG film; we don't ever actually see Bond have sex either but we accept he has bedded plenty of women through the course of the series. It is sourced and the consensus seems for it to remain in the summary so please stop removing it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

First, I just went back and looked at the film and Della's wedding dress is not hiked up with her legs spread open. Second, Dario's comment can imply rape but that is an assumption. The film never directly states that Della was raped. The article should reflect what is actually in the film and not what some assume is implied. So the word 'raped' should be removed from the plot summary. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Her dress is definitely hiked up (unless wedding dresses finished above the knees back in 1989) and her legs can be clearly seen spread. Don't just take my word for it, here is a cap: http://postimg.org/image/h2xr4dkaf/. Secondly, plot summaries are not a screen captioning service. They don't just relay literally what we see on screen, they summarise the events of the story. If there is disagreement over what we have seen then we should defer to secondary sources which we have done in this particular case. There seems to be very little ambiguity in regards to what has occurred and in fact all the sources that discuss this scene invaribly accept that Della has been raped. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Her dress doesn't look hiked up to me. Plot summaries should reflect what is actually presented on the screen, not some people's assumptions or interpretations about it. This is very similar to the discussion in the Skyfall article with one person claiming that M was really Silva's mother based on their own interpretation and a blog post. In this case there is plenty of ambiguity and the plot summary should reflect what is in the film, not some people's opinion about it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

When Dario says that he gave Della a nice honeymoon, he means that he killed her, not rape her.86.149.82.141 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That is your interpretation and a valid one. Others may have a different interpretation. That's the problem. There are various interpretations. Therefore, the article should reflect what is presented in the film and nothing more. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In Dr. No, when Honey is taken away Dr. No says, "I'm sure the guards will amuse her". The next time Honey is seen, her pants are gone. Should it be assumed that Honey was raped by the guards? No, of course not. And the plot summary for that film does not reflect that she was. The same is true here. There is just one vague line of dialogue that can be interpreted in different ways and nothing in the film which directly states that Della was raped. The word should be deleted from the article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No it should bloody well NOT be deleted. There is a consensus that has not been overturned. We reflect the sources, which point out the obvious; the sources,also.point out the obvious point about this fuelling Bond's revenge mission for the rest of the film. This is a disruptive, single-issue IP who has been harping on about this for a while and who is not here to build an encyclopaedia, but to alter one word based on his own opinion and viewpoint. The sources point one way, and that's what we're reflecting until someone shows me the weight of additional reliable sources all now state she wasn't raped. – SchroCat (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the word 'raped' from the article.86.145.116.222 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added it back in, as per the source that is right next to it. Whatever your own personal opinion, there are sources that state this, and it is referred to later in the film. If you continue to edit war to your own personal preference and against both the consensus here and the sources, I'll seek alternative steps to remedy the problem with your approach. – SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is one person's opinion and interpetation. There is nothing directly in the film that states Della was raped. No has to prove the negative that she wasn't. Unless someone can produce a source that quotes the director or screenwriter or someone involved in the making of the film stating that the intent was that Della was raped, it doesn't belong in the plot summery. Until that it is just a matter of opinion and there is a higher standard here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• STOP FUCKING EDIT WARRING! There is an ongoing discussion on this point, which means it remains until the standing consensus changes, so stop now until that is the case. As I've posted on your talk page, this is one of a number of sources that say the same thing. This IS the high standard: the source is an academic text and there are others that are in agreement. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SoT, What fucking planet are you from? Edit warring to remve properly sourced information with the message "Stop edit warring and produce a reliable source": did you not notice the very fucking reliable source in there? Did you not see the stack of very fucking reliable sources in my comment above from Google Books? Are you sure you want to go down the knee-jerk revert route that you'll stoop to such a mindless thing as this? Get a grip on yourself and look at what you have removed: sourced info. Info that has numerous sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

First, let's have a civil conversation without all the cursing. The source is not reliable because it is just an opinion and interpetation. It is not the director or screenwriter stating directly that that was their intent when making the film. As I've pointed out the film itself and the novelization written at the time say nothing about Della being raped. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the the plot summary. Maybe there should be a seperate section that discusses it. As I pointed out above in 'Dr. No', when Honey is taken away Dr. No says, "I'm sure the guards will amuse her". The next time Honey is seen, her pants are gone. Should it be assumed that Honey was raped by the guards? No, of course not. And the plot summary for that film does not reflect that she was. The same is true here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't try and lecture me on what fucking language I can use. You are acting in an utterly dishonourable way here SoT: you have edit warred against the standing consensus and against the numerous reliable sources. You are not the sole fucking arbiter of what does and does not go into this article, and your arrogance is unpleasant to have to deal with. Stop with the Dr No references: it has fuck all to do with this thread, so try and stick to the point. Della is seen on the bed with her dress awry; Dario tells Bond he gave her a "nice honeymoon"; the reliable sources, of which there are a fucking number all point to the same thing. And yet you have treated the standing consensus as if it means nothing: that's sheer naked arrogance. You are ignoring the reliable sources: that's laughable. You have edit warred to force in an inaccurate portrayal based on nothing but your own views and wishes: that’s dishonourable. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You're projecting. The Dr. No analogy is on point. And the sources are not reliable if they has nothing to do with the production of the film. They are at best opinion and interpetation. The plot summary should reflect what is actually in the film, not a third party's interpetation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bollocks: I'm not projecting at all, and no, the Dr No defence is pitifully wide of the mark. The consensus is against you, as are the sources. – SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are projecting. Anyone who reads this thread can see who has conducted themself in a mature manner and who has resorted to childish insults and cursing. The 'Dr. No' analogy is totally on point since both are based on a vague line of dialogue that can be interpeted in many different ways. And comsensus is when all editors agree, not when two editors dictate. The sources are stating their opinion and interpetation, nothing more. Can you produce a source that quotes someone who was actually involved in the production of the film? SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again on several points, but you're too wrapped up in your own opinion to actually see sense. The consensus still stands, despite you edit warring to your own preference. – SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of childishly throwing out accusations and insults can you produce a source that quotes someone directly involved in the production of the film who states that Della was raped? Yes or no. Simple question. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And instead of you also throwing out ad hominem comments, can you clarify what the existing standing consensus is? Simple question. – SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I take it that since you're changing the subject you don't have a source that quotes someone actually involved in the production of the film who says Della was raped. But to answer your question: WP:Consensus And pay special attention to this statement The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. And while you're at it you should also review WP: Civility. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ho hum. You still have not changed the standing consensus here, despite your comments. Yes, you should also read civility. Enough, unless you have something new to say. This is the second or third time this single POV IP has banged on about this, and you are begin as disruptive as him in keeping harping on about this. Time to move on and be constructive somewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus here and never was. There are several editors who object. That is not consensus. The issue is still being discussed and should not be shut down until a true consensus is reached. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus: it is the one that stands: just because you don't agree with it is no reason to ignore it - that is a sub-standard approach. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Just saying that there is one over and over again doesn't make it true. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to put this topic to rest one way or another by going to the best source for this. John Gardner's novelization of License to Kill. I used to own the book but not anymore. It is available through the Palm Beach County library system. I'm going to borrow it (The book isn't at the closest PBC library to me but will be sent there and I will pick it up when it arrives. ETA? The end of this week if past history is any indication) and read the book and see if the word rape (or sexual assault) is mentioned in reference to Delia. If it is even once, the word stays, if it isn't, it goes. The novelization is clearly a more WP:RS since it was written at the time of the movie....William 14:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not a very good source at all, and no-where close to reliable: it doesn't follow the story 'note for note'. It is, according to the title page, "based on" the screenplay, but contains numerous differences from the film. Using this tangential source is a poor basis on which to make the decision here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a more RS than the politics book you're using as proof. The book was written when the movie was being made. Gardner is clearly more knowledgable on the topic than the other author. This noticeboard[2] can be gone to for sorting out which is a reliable source for the article. I find your reaction funny too. The bar is set very low for the word rape to be included. Do you own the book and already know the answer?...William 14:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to do better than this in trying to act as judge, jury and executioner on this matter, especially againtthe current consesus. The bar is not "set low" and it is more than one academic source (which is what our encyclopaedic standard should be based on). The current reference from a reliable third-party source is one of a number of others. Bar not set quite so low now as you pretend here. Gardiner was nothing to do with the film and nothing to do with Eon: it is fundamentally NOT a reliable source for you to decide what the plot summary is. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem it is a third-party source who had nothing to do with the making of the film. Gardner was the official James Bond novelist at the time. He is a far more reliable source. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

He may have been the official novelist, but he was fuck all to do with Eon! The literary and film rights lie in different places and the twain almost never meets: it didn't in this case, and the differences in the book and film make that blindingly clear. Having said that, I fully expect you to ignore all common sense and do what you want to anyway: your disregard for the consensus is woefully cheap. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

He had more to do with EON than any third party source. And again, there is no consensus here. This issue is still being discussed. And again you should review WP: Civility SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You can't use a work of fiction as a secondary source for another work of fiction--even if it's based on it. A work of fiction can never be more than a primary source for itself. You would need to cite the original work of fiction or you would need to cite a reliable secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes the Politics book a RS? Plus WP:MOS PLOT, which Schro Cat has even pointed out up above above, reads- "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work." He admits rape in LTK is an interpretation. SchroCat, please answer my question from before. Do you own the book?....William 14:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the primary source (the film) never says that Della was raped, are you saying the word should be deleted from the article? SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do, but it's a moot point: it is not a reliable source to determine the plot. If it were, we would mention that Leiter had one leg and one arm following a previous shark attack: we don't because the novel is not a reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of coming to a true WP:Consensus and putting this issue to bed, I would propose changing the wording in the plot summary to the following: "When Bond learns Sanchez has escaped, he returns to Leiter's house to find him barely alive and that Della has been murdered (and by implication raped)". This is the wording used in the book Licence to Thrill by James Chapman https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TiRjccIsxzIC&pg=PA241&dq=%22licence+to+kill%22+bond+rape&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAWoVChMIyKSt4d6PxwIVyx8eCh0s8Amg#v=onepage&q=%22licence%20to%20kill%22%20bond%20rape&f=false. I think it is a fair compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a fair compromise too. It makes it clear that the rape isn't actually seen, but retains what the filmmakers go out of their way to imply. I can live with that wording. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem - as I see it - is that you simply cannot show or discuss rape in a film that is essentially part of a family entertainment genre - the James Bond franchise. Anything like that just has to be implied and suggested, rather than explicitly clarified. As a weaker example we don't see Felix have his leg bitten off by the shark, but it's accepted as having happened because we see the aftermath, and there's a strong implication to suggest what has happened. You could carry the same argument on ad nauseum - we never actually see Bond have sex with any of his conquests, so how do we know it happens? By implication, suggestion, and in this case by innuendo - but not by confirmation.

However, I'll agree with SoT on at least one point - there is no consensus, so as per WP:BRD the word should stay until a satisfactory argument is presented, and one that doesn't originate from a deranged and deluded IP - based on wp:IDONTLIKEIT.

I wish I'd just deleted the topic now as recommended by other exasperated editors who've had involvement with the crazy person. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am fully behind your reasoning but neither side is backing down, so either we compromise or send it to an RFC. The filmmakers hint at a rape by as much they can get away with in a film intended for family viewing, and writers discussing the scene clearly interpret it as a rape, so we are not exactly talking ambiguity on a par with "Is Deckard a replicant?" here, but it seems some editors favor a more literal summary of what we actually see. Thornhill's proposal—while a bit clunky—bridges that gap between what what we see and what most likely occurs, so personally I would prefer to draw a line under it and we can all get on with other stuff. It's basically just a sentence in film synopsis at the end of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but there is no strong implication to suggest that Felix's leg is bitten off. There is a direct line of dialogue about it. In the scene after Bond discovers Felix he tells Sharkey that "His left leg is gone below the knee". (It's about 25 minutes into the film.) That is not implication it is a direct statement which is not true of Della being raped. There is no direct line of dialogue to support it. The assertion that she was is based on one very vague line of dialogue that can be interpeted in different ways. As per MOS:PLOT "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". Based on the fact that this issue is clearly one of interpetation, the word raped should be deleted from the plot summary until a reliable source that quotes someone who was directly involved with the production of the film confirms that the intent was that Della was raped. However, I've offered a compromise that is not perfect but I'm willing to live with it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I know the compromise is not perfect, but at least it will settle the issue for the moment. And I am open to better wording if someone can come with it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You miss my point, and therefore the whole point of my argument, and indeed all arguments put forward on this page: Yes, "His left leg is gone below the knee", but where is it stated that this has been caused by the shark? There is no argument that his leg is missing, and yes, it's implied that it's from a shark attack, but where is this actually stated in the film?

And I suggest better wording which would be "that Della has been raped and killed" - you know, the wording that's already there. Still, the alternative suggestion is better than nothing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point of your argument. I just think it is nonsense. Scene A: Leiter is lowered into the shark tank and we see the shark attacking him. Scene B: Bond's finds Leiter and Della. Scene C: Bond tells Sharkey "His left leg is gone below the knee". Scene D: In the hospital Sharkey says "I know a shark bite when I see one". There is nothing near as direct as that regarding Della. Only one very vague line of dialogue which can have different interpetations. As per MOS:PLOT the word raped should be removed from the article. But I'm willing to live with a compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"I just think it is nonsense." - well, at least we agree on something then... Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been a few says since anyone has commented on this. Let's give it another few days but if there is no objections, I'd like to change the wording to the proposed compromise: "When Bond learns Sanchez has escaped, he returns to Leiter's house to find him barely alive and that Della has been murdered (and by implication raped)". SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If no-one puts in a clear oppose in a couple of days I would install it. I would tweak the punctuation slightly to make it flow better though: "...and that Della has been murdered and—by implication—raped". Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'd prefer to stay with the wording and puntuation verbatim from the source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TiRjccIsxzIC&pg=PA241&dq=%22licence+to+kill%22+bond+rape&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAWoVChMIyKSt4d6PxwIVyx8eCh0s8Amg#v=onepage&q=%22licence%20to%20kill%22%20bond%20rape&f=false. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support Betty's suggestion. Parenthesis are bad form in a plot summary, and certainly in this case make for poor sentence flow. I'd even go so far as to suggest the use of the perennial comma rather than m-dash, but that's just me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't support that. I offered a compromise in good faith based on taking the wording verbatim from the source. Now those who want to include what is at best an interpetation of the plot based on one very vague line of dialogue are trying to water down the compromise. So the choice is the compromise verbatim from the source, including the parenthesis, or we send it to an RFC to have the word rape removed entirely. Since MOS:PLOT states: "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work", I would have no problem with that. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no substantive difference between what you have proposed and my revision. Semantically they say exactly the same thing; no words have been added or removed, and only the punctuation is adapted to make it flow better for our purpose. Also, I would like to point out that MOS:PLOT is only a guideline, not a policy, so it doesn't trump WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is a policy, and states: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is a very substantive difference and you know that there is. I tried to propose a compromise in good faith to settle this issue. Unfortunately that is now being met with bad faith by those on the other side who are playing games to get their way. So the choice is simple, the compromise as it was originally proposed, taking the exact wording and puncuation from the source, or we send it to an RFC to have the word rape removed entirely. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Explain to us what the substantive difference is, please. You wanted it to be clear the rape was implied, so how does the altered punctuation alter that? Does it still not mean that the rape was implied? I would also like to point out that a compromise is an agreement between two sides which attempts to accommodates both concerns i.e. you suggested making it clear that the rape was implied, and we agreed to that; that is a compromise. What you seem to be proposing is an ultimatum, which isn't quite the same thing. However, I will offer another comprise: we have two versions of basically the same thing so we can always put in a request for a copy-editor to objectively pick the better punctuated sentence, but that's about as far as I am willing to go. If that isn't acceptable then, yes, an RFC seems to be the only option. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The parenthesis takes the word rape out of the main wording of the plot. It sets it apart and acknowledges that it an implication and interpetation only. The dashes don't cover the word rape and keeps it in the main wording of the plot. You know that's the difference which is why you proposed it. I want the word raped removed completely since there is nothing in the film that states it ever happened. None of the sources directly quotes anyone involved in the production of the film who states that Della was raped. I offered a compromise in good faith using the wording and punctuation taken directly from the a third party source. Now I'm being met with bad faith games. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"bad faith games"? Grow up for crying out loud. I'm utterly staggered that you'd rather commit a copyright infringement by ripping off Chapman's words, than a minor tweak just so you get your own way. You don't have a consensus, whathere is by weight of opinion is against you, and this minor tweak to your suggestion takes nothing away from it. Time to move on and actually be useful somewhere else, if that's at all possible. - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me but who elected you as the decider on this? The compromise was still being discussed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you were being obstructive to a minor tweak to your own fecking suggestion! (Waiting for the person you canvassed to come along and weigh in on your side again, perhaps?) As I have said on your talk page, a minor punctuation tweak which keeps your proposed wording is not bad faith, and takes it a shade away from the rather crass copyright infringement you proposed. Brackets do not work as well in open text as em dashes, where the flow of reading is kept. The wording "by implication raped" is kept together, and separated from the muder by punctuation. This is not bad faith, but it is an improvement on your suggestion through a very minor change of punctuation. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The wording was still being discussed. You don't have the right to swoop in and unilaterally make the decision. And you didn't seem to have a problem with canvassing when Betty canvassed you last week so spare me the hypocrisy. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're in danger of alienating those who are almost coming round to the compromise. I would agree to the m-dash solution, prefer a comma, and be against parenthesis. If you wish to make the argument that "wording is still being discussed" then we should go back to the original version, which you seem dead set against. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm willing to go back to the previous wording and hand the whole issue over to a RFC to have the word rape removed entirely. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then, you shouldn't have kicked this all off, should you? Reap, sow, and all that. It's a bit late for that - especially now that you yourself have provided a source that seems to back up the claim, even if only by implication. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually this was kicked off by other editors who wanted the word rape removed because it is never stated directly in the film and is a matter of interpetation only. I offered a compromise in good faith and was met with bad faith games. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually this was kicked off by one single POV IP editor who wanted the word removed on the laughable basis that "sex is associated with love and attraction, not with hate. Violence dwells on pain and injury, not on sex. If you don't like someone, would you want to have sex with them?" You have not been met with "bad faith games": people have offered minor tweaks to your wording (or rather Chapman's wording that you ripped off). The minor tweak in punctuation does not detract from your edit, but it does improve readability, style and legality, as it's moved it a step away from your copyright theft. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a copyright theft if the source it properly footnoted. I wasn't ripping off Chapman but trying to offer a compromise in good faith by using the source cited. And it is a major tweak by removing the parenthesis. If it is copyright theft then change the wording to "(and by inference raped)" or better yet "--possibly raped". SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this may have been "kicked off" by a deranged IP editor, but you have clearly picked up the torch where they dropped it - not least with this edit from 13:47, 26 July, where you state your opinion with "So the word 'raped' should be removed from the plot summary". You didn't offer the compromise until here on 4th August. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

First let's not engage in WP:PERSONAL attacks and discuss the issue. And at least I offered a compromise. Also, it is not my opinion that MOS PLOT states - "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". It is not my opinion that Della being raped is never stated in the film. It is not my opinion that all that has been offered are third party sources who had nothing to do with the prodution of the film and are just offering their interpetation. It is not my opinion that the novelization published when the film was released, that was authorized by Eon Productions and written by the official Bond novelist at the time, also makes no mention of Della being raped. But it is opinion that Della was raped justified by one very vague line of dialogue which can be interpeted in other ways. SonOfThornhill (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you're now being sarcastic, that post above doesn't make any sense. I'll give you a chance to review and edit it before responding. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And when someone accuses others of engaging in "bad faith games", the irony of them then saying "let's not engage in WP:PERSONAL attacks" when there is no bad faith and there are no such "games", seems almost tangible! - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Every time I see the moral word 'raped', I'd have to removed it. But every time I remove it, you re-type it.31.54.250.128 (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)