Talk:Thunderball (novel)

Edition War September 30, 2004

User @SchroCat today launched himself with myself on a edition war, following corrections an new information added by myself earlier today. SchroCat removed them for motive "ALL the new additions are based on an unreliable source. Sources cannot be from personal or fan-driven websites".

The source he talked about is, I guess, an e-book called "Scripting 007: Behind the writing of the James Bond movies" written by an author called Clement Feutry and published here: https://www.commander007.net/2024/scripting-007-free-book/

SchroCat deemed it "Unreliable" while:

- There is inside 331 explicits precises sources/references, spread/listed on 7 pages (pages 303 to 309).

- That theses sources included actual correspondances, actual court papers, actual movie script/treatment, as well as references ouvrages (some even cited as sources in this same Wikipedia page).

Meanwhile, our previous version of the Wikipedia page before my editions were base on ouvrages like Raymond Benson The bedside compagnion, which basically is:

- Based on interview mades by Benson of the different protagonist of Thunderball evoking 20 years old souvenir (which may be or not acurate due to time factor and that people can lie).

- Isn't based on any document at all (no correspondance of the time, no court paper, no script).

- Which is (as all Bond book, or any book, on any subject) "fan-driven". (But I will pass on that since being fan driven doesn't automaticaly mean innacurate, and that all respected author were a one point basically nobody, just simples fans, before they started their first publications).

By reverting all modification made by me, Shrocat restored wrong informations contained in the original page, such as this sentence: "formed the partnership Xanadu Productions, named after Bryce's Bahamian home, but which was never actually formed into a company". This is untrue, and easly can be proven:

- The sentence in itself: they "formed the partnership Xanadu Productions" but was "never actually formed into a company": contradiction.

- If Xanadu Productions was never formed, how to explains the Wikipedia page of The Boy and the Bridge, which was produced by this compagny?

- How to explain the name "Xanadu Productions" in the film title sequence (ironicaly reproduced in the Scripting 007 book, page 163), or in the film stills for exemple: https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/385121717046

The true is that Xanadu Productions exist and was formed. The compagny that was never formed is Xanadu-Bahamas Limited: a different partenership/society (altrough having a similar name). It was a compagny destined to create the film studio (film studio mentionned in my modification which was reverted). This detail is clearly explained in Scripting 007 book at page 166, or even in Robert Sellers book (page 21, first edition).

So as this exemple show: things was corrected by me, SchroCat deemed my modifications as "unreliable", "ALL" (actually written in caps) of it, reverted it to the old erroned text (which is the one that is actually unreliable since untrue)... Moneyofpropre (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As I put in the edit summary, you need to read WP:UNRELIABLE to understand about unreliable sources. Fansites like commander007.net are a no-no. And that's before we get to the mangled English that made some parts of the changes unreadable. Even if it was rewritten, the information from commander007.net still can't be used, because it's not reliable.

The article is scheduled to be rewritten in the next few months anyway to bring it up to the FA level that most of the other Bond novels are at. Any minor inaccuracies will be dealt with at that point but—and this is the key point—it will be done only using reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

First, the content of this page is in part based on "fansites", see reference n°39 or 42. Why some would be deemed okay, while other abritrary don't? But lets say that all thses gonna be removed in the next rewrites, isn't it?

Second, you still don't answer what in what a book that sources precises tracables documents is less realiable than an other than sources from interview only?

Third: shouldn't the debate "is the informations are true or accurate at all, and can we prove it" rather than is the publisher is an fan of James Bond?

Five: Raymond Benson, Andrew Lycett, Robert Sellers and all the author listed in the reference section aren't fan of Bond too? Should we consider them unreliable and ban their info because they are fan of Bond as well as author?

Six: you have right about the English. But it could maybe be corrected rather than inhalated?

Seven: good you intent to deal with inaccuracies. But how one can do that by only accepting infos that are good only in appearance (because published by a big name of the edition rather than a self-edited). As we see by my previous exemples (and I can give others), having a good "packaging" doesn't mean you are more accurate than someone smaller (who, it is the point, have prime sources support his statements). I happen to see more inacucracies in big news site articles about Bond than in Bond's fans website (written by people who know the subject).

Beside I don't want to disrespect Benson, he is just an exemple took, his book his fantastic, not his fault if he didn't have access to the same prime material some authors had, he did the best he could with what he had. Still their is danger to not question what is wrote inside because he have more credits behind than another guy or another. Moneyofpropre (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but with the best will in the world I cannot understand much of this. For the bits that are understandable, no, the references from fan sites should not be there and they will certainly be removed as part of the rewrite. No fan sites will be part of the rewrite, and that includes commanderbond.net. We do not allow unreliable sources in articles - and commanderbond.net is unreliable. - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard states, I inform you, @SchroCat, that a mediation for this conflict has been started on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Thunderball. You are invited to participate, in order to settle the matter. Moneyofpropre (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Moneyofpropre, I'm replying here as I try to avoid noticeboards where I can.

The site and the e-book are self published. This means there is no editorial oversight to either. They are a fan site, and as such are not suitable for referencing, just as Wikipedia is not generally acceptable for referencing within Wikipedia.

We need references that have editorial oversight. This isn't anything malicious, it's a case of trying to minimise genuine mistakes by fan sights.

I hope this helps? Knitsey (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank for your answer. It was settled since, I'm dropping my action.

I like the fact you use the term "unsuitable" rather than "unreliable" (which, I think, is diresprect for authors who spends hundreds of hours to do their researches thorougly).

I'm sure this Wikipedia system work most of the time and prevent big incident by fans here and here, but sometimes it has certainly its flaws, as here where it does the contrary of what originaly intended...

Anyway, no need to waste more time on this, my claim is over, and one if he ever want to can even deleted this talk section to avoid futher confusion to futur reader, once noticeboard will close the case. Moneyofpropre (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Edition War September 30, 2004" So you two have been discussing this for 20 years? Well then, Happy 20th Anniversary!SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

🤣 SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)