Talk:Ian Fleming/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Withdrawal from FAC

Sadly, in light of the current levels of vitriol, bile and edit warring that has taken place on this page, the article page and spilled over onto the FAC review page, I have reluctantly taken the decision to withdraw the nomination of this article from FAC. I hope all parties are now satisfied that their actions have effectively scuppered the nomination. I am not going to point finger and accuse individuals as this would be counter-productive.
I do not wish this withdrawal to be the start of another round of argument and hatred, but for all parties to take a step back and consider the effect that their own actions have had on this article.
Once this page has calmed down and the edit warring has ceased I will re-nominate and hope that it does not provoke another outbreak of unpleasantness. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the blue box? It's a pity that you couldn't get some sad music to play in the background too.

In the whole TWO WEEKS (how on earth is WP, or indeed the wider world going to cope with the wait) until the article can be re entered into the FA process, I trust that some new FA reviewers can be found, rather more honest and competent than those involved in this last farcial and tainted process. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And some who can spell basic words as well. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, I am doing my best to defuse this situation and I would be grateful if you could please do the same. I have not said that I will re-nominate in two weeks: I have said that I will re-nominate once this page has calmed down. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, on the basis that this article has now been withdrawn from FAC, could you please close the RfC. I do not think there need be any futher action needed on that part. Any requests made in the near future regarding the total removal of the infobox can be directed towards the discussion. Thank you. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to archive

I've had a request to archive the current contents of the talk page. Has the infobox issue been worked out to everyone's satisfaction? Are there any other topics currently under discussion? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's fine. See User talk:Rangoon11#Fleming infobox. I've also swapped email with SchroCat and we've an understanding. We're going to stick with {{infobox person}} and reasonable parameters, but eschew the trivia. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes; less than half an hour (and only four edits) before you asked that; as can be seen in the edit history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies: the request to archive was sent before you started the discussion again. As I have just stated further up the page, but will repeat here for the sake of clarity and continuity, the RfC has been closed by the originator and consensus has already been reached which has resulted in the infobox being retained. The parties who have been heavily involved to date are trying to move on. Thanks again for your comments. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see you there, Andy. Carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I'd not noticed your post, either. Sorry. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone now happy to archive the above? It does not look like there are any further comments to come. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review

I've been asked to provide a FAC-style image review for this article.

• File:Ian Fleming 007.jpg: This is justified (provided there genuinely does exist no free image) but the image page could do with cleaning/tightening: More information about the original provenance/current copyright holder (rather than just a weblink), removing the out-of-use rationales and explaining why this is not replaceable- that the subject is dead.

• Removed. The weblink to the original page was dead and no further details could be established (a Google Images search showed no further copies of the image) A new image has been uploaded with a new FUR attached. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• File:Eton College quadrangle.jpg is fine
• File:GoldeneyeEstate.jpg is fine
• File:CasinoRoyaleCover.jpg is potentially justified. The rationale implies that it's there to display the cover, while the caption implies it's just a filler illustration; if the former, it could be used. However, I'd want to see more in the text on the cover, explaining its significance. I would suspect that it's probably not that significant, and so doesn't warrant a non-free image. An alternative "illustration" may be a blockquote from the text; are the opening lines particularly well known? (I'm sorry to say I've never actually read a Fleming novel.)

• Done - despite your shocking confession! I played around with the caption a little and then realised I was only trying to make the article look pretty, rather than demonstrate a substantive point, so i went for the quote instead. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• File:Fleming007impression.jpg- According to the rationale, this image is "[t]o be used in connection with text describing Fleming's development of the Bond character." That seems viable, but, right now, it doesn't seem to be being used in that way- there's precious little in the development/conception paragraphs about Bond's appearance, and so it's not clear that the image is justified.

• Tweaked, but probably still needs a little more work to get it FAC-proof. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• The last two images are fine.

By no means is the non-free content use in this article absolutely terrible, but it should really be tightened up a little before FAC. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

TFA

I've dropped the Fleming article on for nomination on the front page for showing on 23 October. If anyone feels like commenting, please feel free at TFA requests. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ibn-e-Safi as a Influenced?

I have provided reliable source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/people/The-son-of-Ibne-Safi/iplarticleshow/8270314.cms but The ed17 doesn't seems to think so. thanks Whatasurprise (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A whole stack of editors have now reverted you and you are clearly edit warring. I am in the process of completing the report to the Administrators noticeboard which will, I hope, lead to a temporary ban on your activities. You should also note that the article you are citing does not directly support the information you are including. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already blocked the user for 24 hours. --Rschen7754 05:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers - It'll mean I don't have to fill in that damned form! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a source provided by the user why would you revert it. Have a discussion here. Whatisherenowcometome (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's up to the user to come here after the first reversion - as per WP:BRD. They didn't: they went into edit war mode and are now reaping the rewards of not trying to gain a consensus to include a very poor point. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warrior and his sock indef'ed. --Rschen7754 05:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like this is PR for the new film

[Concern about PR removed by author as it offended others, with apologies 10:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)] 217.155.120.113 (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing covert about it, if you check the history of the Today's Featured Article Requests page, you'll see that's precisely why there was consensus to run it today. Oh, and by the way, no need to make your heading larger than everyone else's -- it'll get seen... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean IP! And while we are on the subject, did you see this which appeared at around the time of the Diamond Jubilee this year? Commercialism at its blatent worse if you ask me! ;-) -- Cassianto^Talk 08:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks Ian for pointers (and fixing heading level); indeed there was discussion. [Ineffective rephrasing removed by author, as it offended others 10:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)] Regards, Jonathan. 217.155.120.113 (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

How is this "PR abuse"? Seeing this as TFA makes me want to see the film no more than wanting to go out and do some gardening. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was PR abuse: I'll try to be clearer. I'm presuming the good faith of the proposers and supporters as fans of Fleming and his creations, and so it's a perfectly sensible thing to promote the page on any meaningful date, (though I would suggest a Fleming-specific date would have been better than a Bond-specifc date). Nonetheless those in PR with purely commercial interests might well be encouraged to plant or promote PR messages through Wikipedia. The main page receives approximately 8m views/day, and is thus valuable to such people. Even if some readers are unaffected, PR people believe, with good reason, that cultural noise helps sell their products. I hope that we can be aware of such possibilities and try not to encourage them, on purpose or by accident. Kind regards, Jonathan. 217.155.120.113 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan, it was me who nominated the article for the front page, and it's an article I have worked on for over a year, undertaking over 450 edits which have—along with a lot of help from a lot of other editors—managed to get it to FA status. I very, very strongly resent any implication that I have nominated the article in some attempt to promote Skyfall. Neither I, nor Wiki (to the best of my knowledge), has financially benefitted from putting this on the main page. One of the core principles of Wiki is WP:GOODFAITH, something which you seem not to realise. I suggest you read that page then re-think any further accusations of malfeasance. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Schroedinger's Cat: I'm very sorry but I tried to be clear that I think no such thing about you or the other editors, having had the process explained, and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. I am just expressing the hope we don't accidentally encourage others who work in PR to think such things are possible. (Also I don't mind if we remove these comments from here if you'd prefer: as my comments are more about Wikipedia in general than this particular article.) Kind regards, Jonathan. 217.155.120.113 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is PR for the new film. PR for Ian Fleming is more likely (though clearly it isn't even that; as SchroCat explains the article has FA status). If covert commercial use were the intention, the Skyfall article would have been the featured article. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you have mentioned it, we probably will You say "though I would suggest a Fleming-specific date would have been better than a Bond-specifc date" Why? Fleming was the creator of Bond. I would call that apt. (Ps) We can't remove your comments now you have posted. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my comments above, with apologies. I took the effort to write because I like the subject, these articles in particular, and care greatly about Wikipedia in general. In hindsight I regard it as a mistake to have brought this topic to this talk page as it is not about improving this article, which is already excellent. My comments belong elsewhere as they are about a different issue; which is why I would prefer if they were all removed. Kind regards, Jonathan. (PS: WP:TPOC certainly permits removing others' comments with their permission: mine was explicitly granted, and remains granted.) 217.155.120.113 (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of Birdwatchers category

Hello - I recently added this article to Category:Birdwatchers, and it was reverted shortly thereafter, along with two other edits with which I was not involved. Let me point out that the following text currently appears in the body of the article:

Fleming took the name for his character from that of the American ornithologist James Bond, an expert on Caribbean birds and author of the definitive field guide Birds of the West Indies. Fleming, himself a keen birdwatcher, had a copy of Bond's guide, and later told the ornithologist's wife, "It struck me that this brief, unromantic, Anglo-Saxon and yet very masculine name was just what I needed, and so a second James Bond was born".

Additionally, here is the 1989 NYT obituary for the U.S. ornithologist James Bond, which reads in part:

Mr. Fleming, an avid bird watcher, was writing a thriller at the time and adopted the ornithologist's name for the dashing character later portrayed in films by Sean Connery, Roger Moore and other actors.

So, I would like to suggest the following:

• Include this article in Category:Birdwatchers
• Use the 1989 NYT obituary of Bond as a reference for the already-existing statement in the article that Fleming was a "keen birdwatcher".

If there any objections to this, please let's discuss. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry KConWiki, my mistake: I took out your edit by mistake when I removed the other bits, which were unsourced. Please feel free to re-add. - SchroCat (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem at all; Thanks for the quick response and thanks for all you do to help WP have high-quality Bond/Fleming information. KConWiki (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think we should be all set - Let me know if you notice anything amiss. KConWiki (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

All good - just a minor comma position. Many thanks for the addition. - SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Trine Day & James Bond is Real

I've again removed nonsense from the article from deep within WP:FRINGE country. No doubt I shall be labelled a CIA stooge for having done so, thus perpetuating the status quo and not allowing independent thought, but hey ho, that's life. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fleming and Mincemeat

It's an attractive idea, yes, but as this is an encylopedia we should avoid sensationalism and what just 'sounds cool' and report what is known and proven by credible sources. The cited source for the idea is Ben Macintyre, but he didn't in fact claim that Ian Fleming 'was involved in the planning of Operation Mincemeat'. He didn't even claim Fleming wrote down an idea that inspired the operation. He claimed something subtly but significantly different: that in 1939 a memo signed by Godfrey and issued under Godfrey's name contained an idea broadly similar to Mincemeat three years later. Macintyre *speculated* - but did not prove - that the memo had in fact been written by Fleming rather than Godfrey. And Macintyre then spent most of the chapter explaining how the Trout Memo probably didn't actually inspire Mincemeat, for the following reasons:

1. Such a deception was a commonly known idea - in fact, the Trout Memo got it from Basil Thomson's 1937 thriller The Milliner's Hat Mystery. But of course there's the Trojan Horse of history, and this is what Cholmondoley called the operation when he proposed it in detail in 1942.

2. The idea even had a name - the haversack ruse. Macintyre gives examples of it in use from 1917 and 1942, and says it was 'deeply embedded in intelligence folklore' (p18.)

3. The crash of James Hadden Turner seems to have played a major role in Cholmondoley's thinking.

So at best I think we can say that Ian Fleming *might* have written a memo in 1939 that *might* have *partially* inspired Charles Cholmondoley in October 1942 to come up with the much more precise idea of Mincemeat. And even that ignores that such a general idea of planting papers in a haversack on a corpse was already 'deeply embedded in intelligence folklore'.

User 'SchroCat' has claimed that the idea is 'also covered by Chancellor as well', I guess meaning Henry Chancellor's 2005 book James Bond: The Man And His World. I can't find the reference to it there, though. Can we reach a consensus on this please?Jeremy Duns (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, please wait until the discussion is completed before reverting again. Please also remember to sign your posts (such as the above, using the four tildes (~~~~). Thank you - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not sure why you undo every change I make but I can't undo yours, when I've clearly provided the evidence and you haven't! But okay, we're here now. Let's have the discussion. What's the evidence, please, for these two statements currently in the article?

'Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat...'

'Number 28 on the list was an idea to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemy; this suggestion formed the basis of Operation Mincemeat...'

The citation for the second one is given as Macintyre, p7. Where on that page, or any other, does Macintyre say that the Trout Memo was definitively written by Ian Fleming, that Fleming was involved in the planning of Mincemeat, or that the memo he might have written formed the basis of the operation? And where exactly is this covered by Chancellor, as you stated on the edit history page?Jeremy Duns (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"I'm not sure why you undo every change I make but I can't undo yours": As I said on your talk page, and on the edit summaries, see WP:BRD. You are the one who wants to change the established article, which means you have to get the consensus to do so if things are challenged. that having been said, thank you for coming to the talk page and outlining your concerns. As I alluded to in the various edit summaries, there are other sources which discuss this. Chancellor goes over the same material on page 29 (2005 hardback edition), although he states that "the department" produced the memo, but the remainder is outlined there. There is a reference in one of the Craig Cabell books, and I am sure I have another reference elsewhere, but I will dig them our shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't aware that minor changes like this required a consensus. I don't think they were bold at all - I've used the same source as already cited in the article! I've just, you know, actually read it. Have you? You've completely ignored all my points and pointed to other sources, which aren't cited as it stands now. The cited source before my changes was Macintyre, p7. Look at that page and the subsequent ones, if you have the book - and I do hope you do otherwise I fail to see why you've challenged my minor uncontroversial edits, which I've made clear are from reading the already-cited source. It doesn't say what it states in the article, at all. It says what I changed it to.

I see the bit in Chancellor now. It's from 2005 and, as you say, does not claim Ian Fleming wrote the memo, and is just one paragraph long. Unlike Macintyre, he didn't provide a precise date for the memo, give it its name or its reference (ADM 223/478 in the UK National Archives). But yes, he did write - with no evidence given for the claim - that the memo 'was the germ of the idea' behind Mincemeat. Do you really think that paragraph in a book with no endnotes is more authoritative and sourced than Ben Macintyre's critically acclaimed book from 2010, which is devoted to the operation, and which has an entire chapter looking at this issue? I don't. (And even if it were, it doesn't substantiate the idea that Ian Fleming was involved with planning Mincemeat, as currently inaccurately stated in the article.)

You can provide the evidence from Cabell and elsewhere, by all means - I take it you mean Ian Fleming's Secret War, which I don't have for various reasons (let's be polite and say I don't think he's as authoritative as Macintyre). But Ben Macintyre's book is the source that is cited in the article at the moment. So let's start with that. The book doesn't say what it is cited as saying, does it? I think it might be best to answer why the currently cited source is reliable before providing other sources, which haven't been cited yet.

I think this is uncontroversial and minor editing that improves the article and hopefully helps stop a somewhat sensational claim gaining more of a foothold - surely part of the point behind an encylopedia like this. I'd love to reach a consensus as soon as we can and not spend ages on this, so please can you just look at the chapter in Macintyre's book? Thanks. Jeremy Duns (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a spin through Cabell later on. I agree with the concerns in your polite reason: I share that, but I'm happy if the source behind it is solid. If it's not sourced in Cabell I don't use it. (There's a reason I didn't quote any of his books in this article!) Regardless of the memo, Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Mincemeat: he was on the committee behind it, so regardless of how it came into being (which we'll get onto shortly), he was part of the team who worked on it (albeit in a relatively minor capacity). Let me have a spin through what I have and see if the remainder of the claim can be backed up using the other sources, rather than just the one Macintyre one. - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I make a polite, and I hope constructive suggestion? Please read Chapter 2 of Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre. It's very detailed, and he gives all the sources. Why are you now looking into Cabell, who by your own admission is not as good a source, when Macintyre wrote an entire book about this operation, is an expert on Fleming, and is clearly the authoritative source on this? These are the two main statements in the article I changed:

'Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat...'

'Number 28 on the list was an idea to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemy; this suggestion formed the basis of Operation Mincemeat...'

There is no credible evidence for either of these statements. Fleming was *not* on the committee behind Mincemeat, and was not part of the team who worked on it, in a minor or any other capacity. Fleming was in Naval Intelligence, but Mincemeat was planned and executed by Montagu and Cholmondoley with the Twenty Committee. He had nothing to do with it. This is all in Macintyre's book. As I've read the book and you apparently haven't, can I suggest you do read it, or at least that chapter? The only 'challenge' here is from you, and you haven't even read the source in question! This is wasting both of our time, I think. There's nothing controversial in my edits at all - Macintyre *speculated* Fleming wrote a memo in 1939 that contained a broad idea from a 1937 novel and that this *may* have *partially* inspired Cholmondoley when he thought up the precise details of the operation in 1942 - but he also provides lots of evidence that such an idea was common currency in intelligence circles at the time. Known as the haversack ruse, it was 'deeply embedded in intelligence folklore'. And Ian Fleming had no part in planning Mincemeat. The fact that you have books about Fleming and Bond but still think Fleming was on the team that planned Mincemeat shows precisely why we should be accurate and change this, because it's very easy for ideas to spread in a Chinese whispers way. Before Macintyre's book, nobody would have claimed that Fleming was involved in planning Mincemeat. Now, through this article on Wikipedia and a failure to read the very source cited on it, that idea has spread. Please read Macintyre's chapter and then explain to me how my edits were inaccurate or controversial in any way. I've just *read the cited source*.Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read it, and a number of other books about Fleming, some of which cover this information. Fleming was involved in some aspects of the planning and I'll give you the full references once I've dug them up again. There is absolutely no rush on this, we will sort it out in the next day or so and we will all be happy with the information that was included. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. When you say 'we all' you mean you and me, I take it! Nobody else has objected to my edits. Ian Fleming was not involved in any planning of Mincemeat as far as I know, but yes, please provide the references for that. I'm rather surprised, considering Macintyre made no mention of it, and his book is widely recognized as being the comprehensive account of the operation - according to Macintyre, the extent of Fleming's involvement was in possibly writing a memo with Godfrey's name on it that possibly (but, actually, probably not) partially inspired the idea, and in 1945 30AU found a document that revealed the name of the Spanish officer who had handed the Mincemeat papers to the Abwehr (p226). That's it. Both very tenuous connections, and neither any evidence of Fleming being involved in any way with planning the operation. But if you've already read Macintyre's book, what else do you need to look into for the other edits I made? When you challenged my edits on this I presumed it was because you knew of sources that contradicted me. Yet here you are still looking up sources! In the hope I might be wrong? What was the basis for your challenge? I was working from the source *already cited*. It's the authoritative source, too.

So ignoring the part about Fleming being involved in the planning for the moment, where on the currently cited page 7 or indeed anywhere else in the book does Macintyre state that 1) The Trout Memo was largely written by Fleming. 2) Item 28 in the Trout Memo inspired Operation Mincemeat. He doesn't, does he? In fact, he *speculates* that Fleming wrote the Trout Memo despite it being signed by Godfrey, but offers no proof of it, and then provides a lot of evidence to support the idea that the memo *didn't* inspire Mincemeat anyway. Montagu even explicitly denied it (p31), and in response to a letter from Godfrey claiming the idea as his, which goes against the idea that Fleming wrote the memo anyway (that and the rather telling fact that even though Mincemeat was incredibly well-known by the time Fleming became famous, and he mentioned it an interview with Playboy, he never claimed any involvement in it, and yet was happy to state he had worked in Naval Intelligence and take credit for Goldeneye, to the extent he named his house in Jamaica after that operation). So why are my edits controversial, or bold? Why can't we already just put those back in, and deal with your idea that Fleming was involved in planning the operation later? Do you have other evidence than that cited by Ben Macintyre that Fleming wrote the memo and that it inspired Mincemeat? If so, please cite it! If you haven't, why are you looking for it when the article currently cites the authoritative source on this, but inaccurately? It's not that I'm in a hurry, but that I don't see the point in wasting time on this when it's perfectly clear from the cited source that my edits are accurate. If you don't think so, *please* could you explain precisely why not, quoting Macintyre? Thanks. Jeremy Duns (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody else has objected to my edits": apart from the other editor who reverted you. I suspect he may have objected to it, considering the fact he was the first person to revert you. Jeremy, this will be sorted out very shortly and the article will be stronger because of it. There are numerous sources of information about Fleming's life, some of which deal with Mincemeat, some of which don't. I will take a spin through them shortly and let you know what else I have found. In this way the information will not have come entirely from one source, but be the agreed consensus of all the sources (or at least the ones I have to hand). What you have written above may be correct, but it actually reads like a lot of OR in the way you have put it forward. I'll revert back once I've gone through the sources. Again, there is absolutely no need to rush this, and we will iron out the wrinkles in the next day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right - another user called 'Cassianto' immediately reverted one of my edits, saying 'Sources for this have been provided'. But they didn't check the single source that has been provided, which is Ben Macintrye's book Operation Mincemeat, page 7, because that says what I've edited this to. It's not original research to point out that Ian Fleming never made any claim to be involved with Mincemeat - it's just a fact. Unless you have a source for that?

If I understand you correctly, you repeatedly reverted my minor edits to this article without providing any sources to counter them or valid reason for it, then accused me of edit-warring and insinuated I might be blocked! The changes I made accurately cited the given source, Macintyre, which you claim to have read but still fail to acknowledge does not state what is currently written in the article. I'm now waiting for you to find other, currently uncited sources that may support the statements that are currently inaccurately cited, but you don't actually know what those sources are, meaning you just reverted my edits repeatedly... why, exactly? Because you had a hunch I was wrong based on a paragraph in a 2005 book with no endnotes, and something you think might be in a book by Craig Cabell, a source you have not included in the article to date because he's not all that reliable? This is hardly good faith editing, is it?

But okay, no hurry - though I note you were exceptionally quick to act when removing my edits, yet have all the time in the world (as it were!) when providing the sources for doing that. But as you decided to escalate these (to my mind) completely uncontroversial edits into a talk discussion and an acronym suggesting I've been incredibly daring rather than just correcting some easily checked errors, can we at some stage do what you asked and seek to conclude this? I've provided my source, while you haven't yet provided yours, apart from Chancellor, who didn't actually make any claim that Ian Fleming wrote the Trout Memo, or that he was involved in planning Mincemeat. He did claim - but with no evidence given for it - that the memo was the germ of the idea that led to the operation. But I don't think that single, rather vague paragraph overrules Macintyre laying out in scrupulously sourced detail over a dozen pages the history of the haversack ruse, how such an idea was already 'deeply embedded in intelligence folklore', how Cholmondoley was inspired by the Turner crash and Montagu's own denial that the operation was inspired by this memo, do you?

So I think if the article is to stand as it is, you or someone else needs to provide authoritative sources for the following statements currently in it:

'While working in British naval intelligence during the Second World War, Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat...'

'On 29 September 1939, soon after the start of the war, Godfrey circulated a memorandum that was largely written by Fleming.'

'Number 28 on the list was an idea to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemy; this suggestion formed the basis of Operation Mincemeat...'

In the absence of credible sources for these three statements, my suggested edits were, and remain:

'While working in British naval intelligence during the Second World War, Fleming was involved in planning Operation Golden Eye, as well as the planning and oversight of two intelligence units...'

'On 29 September 1939, soon after the start of the war, Godfrey issued a memorandum under his name that, according to historian Ben Macintyre, had probably been written by Fleming...

'Number 28 on the list was an idea to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemy; this suggestion is similar to Operation Mincemeat, the successful 1943 plan to conceal the intended invasion of Italy from North Africa, although that idea was developed by Charles Cholmondoley in October 1942...'

My source for the latter two is Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre, pp6-18.

But I'm happy to have the statements as they currently are, of course, if you or anyone else can provide authoritative sources for them. Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, there really is no rush. I removed the edits when I saw them (and I was not ther first to do them). I do not have the luxury of time during the day as I do have a full-time job to hold down, and glance in at Wiki in between other tasks. As I have said above, I will look at the sources I have as soon as possible. I have already indicated that I think you are possibly on the right track, but I need to check the available sources before we change something that is also possibly correct. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but I already have checked it! That's why I made the changes. You haven't checked, but removed the edits anyway. Why are you suddenly looking for a whole load of other sources for this? It's about Operation Mincemeat. The authoritative source on that is Macintrye. But okay... I look forward to seeing the sources for the three statements in the article I quote above.81.228.144.130 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the best thing is to check multiple sources: not just one. If we can ensure that the verifiable sources have all been checked, then the information will be watertight and it will not just be down to whether it is one source or more. If there is a conflict in the sources we'll have to discuss it further, but let's just see what they say first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, you presumed I was wrong without even checking, and threw your weight around! No? There's no hurry for you to find sources countering my minor edits, but there needn't have been a hurry to remove them either. The definitive source on Mincemeat is Macintyre's full-length book on it. Now it's becoming clear to you that his book doesn't say Fleming was involved you want to find another source! To the extent you want to look up a source (but haven't yet) who you admit is not already cited because he's not especially reliable. But okay... Let's see your sources for this challenge to my minor edits. I do hope they're more convincing than that para in Henry Chancellor's book. In fact, they'll have to be more credible than Macintyre's book on this operation. I suggest next time you do your homework before ripping mine up. Jeremy Duns (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

Jeremy, Please try and take a step back and get some perspective on this. You made some changes to a Featured Article that were subsequently reverted: you started a mini edit war over them with the other editor and myself, rather than coming to the talk page. I am trying to get this sorted out so that at the end of the day the article is as good as we can make it. Your comments above do not help get us to that point and simply end up annoying other editors. I have said that we will sort through all the available sources, rather than selectively chosing just one book; this is the best and safest way to go on this. In the midst of your constant barrage of comments (and subsequent alterations which have led to countless edit conflicts) I am also trying to do some work, so perhaps you could just wait for a little bit and show a bit of good faith in the motives and actions of others, just for a little while? - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What good faith did you show in my very minor and very accurate edits? You challenged with no basis - you didn't even bother to check first! The information has had one source for two years! I think you edit-warred, not me, and with no basis. I came to the Talk page within five minutes of you demanding it - why the hurry I don't know as you say you can't yet answer anyway. Impatient? You're the one who was so impatient you repeatedly removed my edits without even waiting to get home and look it up. I think I've been very patient, considering. I don't appreciate your vaguely threatening comment about me being blocked on my Talk page, either. I've researched the changes I made, thoroughly - you haven't. I'm sorry if it irritates you that I'm arguing my case but you demanded I do, I did, and I'm still waiting for you to fo the research I've already done. I'm happy to wait. But if you can't provide credible sources for these three statements and still refuse to reach consensus I suggest you might be the one to be blocked, not me. You challenged and removed with no basis, without even bothering to check. And you still haven't. And perhaps you might be advised to take a step back yourself - look at your three messages to me within five minutes! Minor edits are taken in good faith - if you had reason to doubt them you should have checked first, then challenged, not the other way round. It would have saved us both a lot of time and aggravation.Jeremy Duns (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"you edit-warred, not me": No. You reverted Cassianto (talk · contribs)'s reversion, which was the first step in edit warring. Your subsequent reversion of my edit compounded your initial offence. As I've said here and else where, you should have come to the talk page at that point, not edit warred up to the point of 3RR before coming to the talk page. Jeremy, I am trying to sort this out, but your constant posting and finger-pointing is not making it easy for me to do this properly. A point of clarification, which is germane here: your initial edit was not minor, and you should not have marked it so. A WP:MINOR edit is one which covers only superficial differences, such as a minor spelling point or an error in punctuation, not something that changes the focus of what is written to something completely different. Your edit was not minor (and should certainly not have been marked as such). I will check the sources as soon as I can: the less interruptions from your constant postings will ensure that this happens more quickly. One final point: could you please write your posts in word and post them here once they are complete, or use the preview function? Your constant editing does make it difficult and annoying for other users to reply when edit conflicts happen because of your constant changes in your postings. I will also point out that I was not "threatening" you on your talk page, as you so melodramatically put it. I was pointing out what happens to people who edit war past the point of WP:3RR: that is not a threat, it is ensuring you are aware of a very clear wiki-policy - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... No, that's what happened. I made a minor edit based on looking at the cited source in an attempt to improve the article by removing a false, slightly sensational, widely believed but inaccurate claim. Cassianto reverted that edit *within 3 minutes of me making it*. They stated there was already a source for it. This is initiating an edit war because they can't possibly have consulted the book in that short a time. I had just consulted it! I did what anyone would hace in that situation, I think: I replaced my edit and politely pointed out that it was cited, but inaccurately, and explained why. Your first removal happened while I was dealing with that. I found that odd - two people removing a well-sourced edit within moments of each other, presuming bad faith. I had *just read the source* to make the edits, and I saw no reason in your response to counter my edits and it seemed of a piece with the previous kneejerk response. And I was right - as you've since admitted you still haven't actually checked the sources. I had so why should I just let this spurious info remain in the article now I've spent time checking and correcting it, because someone who hasn't has a trigger finger? Our edits crossed. By the the time I saw your demand I bring it here I'd made that change. Giving no valid reason you haf once again editwarred by removing my edits. Shoot first, ask questions later! I'd already explained why the source said something different, ie what I had edited. You'd ignored it. I restored my edits and explained I would take it to Talk. You then flipped out, leaving me three messages in five minutes saying *I* had to stop editwarring and take it to Talk. By which time I had, laying out very clearly the reasons and sources for my edits and asking for your countering sources. You then eventually offered Chancellor's paragraph, which doesn't state two of the claims and offers no evidence for the third, then said there was no hurry and tried to make out that I'm the one who initiated this silly spat and edit-warred! And have still not, despite demanding I immediately explain all my reasoning here, given your countering sources - a and apparently that's my fault, too! It seems I must react within moments to your demands and so what you say, and yet you can be as demanding, obstructive and take as much time as you want. If you remove my edits with no basis repeatedly you're sensible - if I do the same to you having checked I'm editwarring. Take your time! I'll wait.94.234.170.52 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained above, you did NOT make a minor edit; see WP:MINOR for what constitutes a "minor" edit. Secondly Cassianto did not initiate an edit war by reverting your edit: you did by reverting him. As I've said before, read WP:BRD and no, not everyone would have done what you did. The vast majority of good and responsible editors would have gone to the talk page because they know what BRD is and how it works. If you hadn't started edit warring firstly with him and then with me, then the discussion would not have been so long or have moved so far away from the point. It was your actions that were contrary to good practice here and we have both wasted a lot of time arguing the toss over the trivial nonsense that started it, rather than focus on the substantive points in hand. I'm not sure why you think you are above the various policies, procedures and guidelines of wiki, but it would help your editing time (and that of everyone else you come into contact with) if you learnt a few of the basics of interaction before trying to crowbar your thoughts into an article against the consensus of others. - SchroCat (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This was my edit which Cassianto immediately removed without even bothering to check the source: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ian_Fleming&diff=552695288&oldid=552525716 That's a minor edit by any sensible definition - by minor I just mean in general discourse, not the Wikipedia term. A small edit, if you want. Of course it's fine to challenge another editor's change - if there's a valid basis for it. Removing nuanced edits that make an article less sensational within three minutes and without even bothering to check first is irresponsible, and basically vandalism, again in an idiomatic sense. At the least, it was obstructive and trigger-happy. And editwarring, yes. If you make small changes to an article and someone else instantly reverts them all back for no good reason, you don't just go fine, okay, leave all the errors I just corrected. Cassianto removed my edits too fast, without checking, and they were wrong. They wrote: '(Undid revision 552695288 by Jeremy Duns (talk) -- Sources for this have been provided) (undo)' But there weren't sources plural, just one, which I had checked, and in fact had in front of me. So they had clearly jumped the gun. So I pressed undo and restored my perfectly fine edit that they had removed as a kneejerk response, and politely explained why: 'Inaccurately! See pp9-18 on Turner, wide knowledge & use of haversack ruses, CC's Trojan Horse. No evidence Trout Memo inspired Mincemeat.' I felt this explanation made it very clear that I knew the source, Macintyre, very well indeed, and knew what I was doing. Perhaps Cassianto came to the same conclusion, as they didn't revert it back. But you ignored my explanation and instead decided to take a sledgehammer out, read me the riot act and claim I'd made some massively bold and controversial changes that needed consensus - all without even bothering to check the cited source. Somehow I'm the bad guy because you repeatedly and with no basis removed clear and sourced improvements to the article?

I haven't 'crowbarred' anything into the article, let alone my thoughts - I made a few small, sensible, and nuanced changes to a couple of sentences about Operation Mincemeat in an effort to apply some knowledge I have to improve the article by ridding it of some inaccurate claims (that it has no doubt helped spread over the last few years), and you responded by crowbarring them *out* for no valid reason, without even checking the source first! You demanded a consensus on some small edits that should have been totally uncontroversial and which could have been dealt with in five minutes if you'd actually looked it up first instead of immediately pulling a trigger by reverting. I dread to think what would happen if all Wikipedia editors took every small edit to a consensus discussion like this without even checking them first - it would be gridlock. And I don't agree that this was a bold edit at all: it's a couple of lines changed for tone to remove some small inaccuracies that don't reflect what is in the cited source - check!. But you seem to misunderstand BRD anyway:

'BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.' You are wielding it here like it is some policy I must follow.

'BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.' You reverted my good-faith efforts to improve the page, though I've no idea what your motivation was.

'Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.' You haven't done any - you still haven't cited your evidence for the changes as they stand, whereas I have cited my source for my edits and explained them in detail above. Common sense says that as my edits were small, reduced the sensational angle of some statements and I gave a rather detailed reply to Cassianto's instant reversion, I probably knew what I was doing. Common sense says you check first.

'BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.' You didn't do that: you reverted *and* insisted on a discussion. I did both, but I at least have actually looked at the source in question! Compare my opening comments on this page, which are concretely about the edits and my reasons for making them, to your first reply, which focusses exclusively on this bureuacratic stuff and doesn't even attempt to counter the content of my edits that you had repeatedly removed and insisted I explain to get a consensus. We can only reach a consensus once you have provided your sources and explained them - I already have done.

'The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.' That would be me. You insisted I take it to Talk, then when I had claimed you didn't have time to look at the sources just yet. Why repeatedly delete my edits, then? You could have waited until you *had looked it up and had a reason to believe they were wrong*. You still haven't.

'Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible.' Cassianto didn't do that, and neither did you - you both *immediately* reverted perfectly good edits, within a matter of minutes of them appearing, with no serious counter or any effort made at an edit, let alone a bold one. You simply acted as if my edits were wrong without presenting any evidence to the contrary. Consensus is for when there's a *reason* to doubt something. You had no reason to doubt my edits, but did anyway. It takes two to have a war, and as Basil Fawlty once remarked you invaded Poland... :)

But yes, you're right, this isn't getting us anywhere. It won't until you do the research I already did to make the edits you removed within minutes, without even checking first, in an awful big hurry that has suddenly slowed down. So fine... Look it up. Then we can reach a consensus. What an effort to make some simple and small changes to this article, though! I see no earthly reason you couldn't have both actually looked it up first before removing my edits. There's no hurry, after all. And it would have shown good faith. But I'm happy to see your evidence.Jeremy Duns (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And you're back to talking—at tediously great length—about the poor start to your edits this morning. As above, perhaps concentrating on the substantive issue in hand may be more productive, rather than pointing fingers at others while trying to prove you were not edit warring?

• Lycett (1996), P 147 talks about Fleming assisting in the matter
• As above, Chancellor refs to the matter (and before you mention it, no, there are no in-line citations, but that does not mean that we throw this reliable source out just because you don't want to believe it)

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You are shameless! So sorry to be tedious, but you irritated me - this whole discussion, which you insisted on, could have been avoided if you'd used common sense and looked it up first. It wasn't a 'poor start' to my edits - you removed them, repeatedly, for no valid reason!

But let's get to it then.

Lycett wrote: 'In a related ruse later in the year, Ian assisted in one of the Navy's most elaborate hoaxes ever, The Man Who Never Was.'

That's it. No endnote. No primary source given. No explanation for how he assisted in it. No explicit claim he was involved in the planning. This also does not give any indication Fleming wrote the Trout Memo, or that that memo inspired the operation. So we can't use it as a source for either.

I've already explained my objections to Henry Chancellor. That claims the memo led to the operation, but it doesn't claim Fleming wrote it or that he was involved in the operation's planning. So we can't use that as a source for either of those.

So where does that leave us? Well, we *could* use Lycett for:

'Ian Fleming assisted in Operation Mincemeat.' He does say that, and he's certainly a very respectable source indeed. And we *could* use Chancellor for:

'A memo written by the Naval Intelligence Division in 1939 triggered the idea for Operation Mincemeat.' He does say that, and it's also a highly respectable source.

Is that what you want to do, though, really? Do you think that is going to improve this article? I love Lycett's book, and I am very fond of Chancellor's, but the nature of the beast is that information is superceded. Lycett published in 1996, Chancellor in 2005, and in both this is a passing mention, with no sources cited for what is phrased very vaguely. In 2010, Macintyre published an entire book about the operation, and it is fully sourced for all of this. He devotes the whole of a chapter to the development of this idea, through the 1939 memo, his speculation that Fleming really wrote it, Thomson's novel, the history of the haversack ruse giving examples of when it had been done before, the Turner incident, what Cholmondoley made of it and how he proposed it, and later quotes from Montagu's own letters in which he denies that the memo was an influence. The book is 400 pages long and goes into immense detail about how the operation was devised, planned and carried out. Ian Fleming played no role whatsoever in the planning or execution of the operation, according to Macintyre. So common sense says that, great sources as Lycett and Chancellor are both for many Fleming- and Bond-related pieces of information, on these pieces of information they've been superceded by a book that went into great detail about this one operation. Ben Macintyre is a better source on Operation Mincemeat than Lycett or Chancellor.

Unless you have any other sources or reason to dispute this other than stubborness, I propose I now reinstate the edits I made earlier. Do you agree?Jeremy Duns (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed your 'more to follow'. Okay. These are the statements I think you need to cite sources for:

'While working in British naval intelligence during the Second World War, Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat...'

'On 29 September 1939, soon after the start of the war, Godfrey circulated a memorandum that was largely written by Fleming.'

'Number 28 on the list was an idea to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemy; this suggestion formed the basis of Operation Mincemeat...'

Lycett sort of says the first, Chancellor says the third, but both vaguely, in passing, with no primary sources given. Macintyre contradicts both the last two, citing the primary source, and never mentions the first, and he is clearly the more authoritative source about this operation. (And he's also, of course, a Fleming expert.)

But happy to hear more evidence until we reach a consensus on this.Jeremy Duns (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I go away for a few hours and look what happens. Right Jeremy Duns, I reverted you because what you added was bloat. The source said pretty much what you were saying, but you went round the houses in saying it. "Who is Cassianto?" I co-nominated the bloody article at FAC and have fought its corner along with my co-editor SchroCat. We took the article from obscurity and lifted it to its current condition now. (Admittedly SchroCat did all the donkey work, and I copy edited). I would beg of you not to tarnish the article by warring. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see - you have dibs on the article and I'm an interloper so you removed my edits within three minutes without checkign the source. The source says precisely what I changed it to, and not at all what it said and now still says. It's not warring - I was making a small series of responsible changes to inaccuracies in the article, using the source, I didn't ask who you were, and nor do I care. Nor did I 'add bloat' - I corrected the inaccuracies that Ian Fleming definitely wrote the Trout Memor, that the memo led to Mincemeat and he was involved in the operation. That is all. I may have added bloat to this page, but that's another matter. :)Jeremy Duns (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to harp on about this Jeremy, it was warring. Whether you were inserting "correct" information or not, what you were doing with the reverts was warring. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, here you again, rambling on tediously... Perhaps concentrating on the substantive issue in hand may be more productive, rather than pointing fingers at others. See how irritating that tactic is? I do hope so.

I added sensible edits that you removed without even checking the source. Yet my putting them back was warring and your putting the old version back repeatedly somehow wasn't. Takes two to have a war, I think! I do wish you'd stop desperately trying to find new sources to show something that is already clear from the source that has been cited in the article for over two years, but which was somewhat misrepresented.Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, what you were doing by the constant revers was warring. It's pretty much the definition for it, almost regardless of your motives. You were one revert away from a trip to ANI this morning, and that would have led to a ban for warring. You may think what you were doing was somehow right or justified, but edit warring just is not tolerated. - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

'SchroCat', you can try to paint me as the culprit here as much as you want, but it doesn't make your view fact. I clearly stated my reasons for my edits when undoing an instantaneous and frivolous removal of them, and you ignored that and, without clearly citing sources, immediately changed it all back despite my pointing out why that was not a good idea. War is such a silly word for this - I wrote something, you undid it, I undid that, you undid that. That's all. 'Edit war.' In fact, you repeatedly removed sensible, sourced edits that I'd made and clearly explained without any good reason to do so and without providing valid sources for the version you were repeatedly reverting to. I did provide an authoritative source and reasoning. So I think you were edit-warring, not me, and I don't care how many times you say otherwise or how many acronyms you throw my way. It's not that I somehow think I was right. I was. You still haven't provided any sources to back up the article as it stands, and have even resorted to arguing that an earlier Macintyre book that mentions Operation Mincemeat in passing is more accurate than his book devoted to the operation! I think your repeatedly removing uncontroversial edits without checking them out first - which one might even term edit-warring - was counter-productive and not at all in the spirit of good faith. You said there was no hurry for you to provide sources and it would all be sorted out in due course, but by that same logic there should have been no hurry for you to remove my edits, either. We could have discussed it here and you could have then reverted, or not, based on the discussion and looking into it. Shooting first and asking questions later is not good faith. And that's what you did.Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, your reversions of others is edit warring, regardless of motive. If you struggle to understand that—and I see that you are a relatively new and inexperienced editor—then your editing time on Wiki is going to be a rather Hobbesian solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Once your preferred version was reverted you should have come to the talk page without reverting again. That's it, end of story. Re-reverting is edit warring: that's pretty much the definition of it right there. You can try and paint yourself whiter-than-white if you wish, but the head-in-the-sand argument is no justification. I am trying to help you understand what is considered acceptable editing practice and what is not, so please don't continue arguing this point and try to take it on board. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

'Re-reverting is edit warring'. In which case you also 'edit-warred'. I did come to Talk, within minutes of you demanding it. Please do look at my first comment here, which is all about my reasoning for my edits and the source of it, and your first response, which harped on about edit-warring and didn't provie any sources to back up the version you reverted to. I made a pefectly sensible and small edit - removing nine words and adding eight - that corrected some inaccuracies by referring to the source that had been cited but slightly misrepresented. Within three minutes it was deleted by another editor *for no good reason*. Cassianto said there were already 'sources' for it. There was one, so they didn't know what they were talking about. I had the source in front of me. So I judged it was a bad-faith edit on their part and undid it. I was entirely justified in doing so, especially as they havemade it clear in this conversation that they didn't even read my edits, let alone check the source, before acting! The same applies to you in that you removed my edits without giving a valid reason, so I reverted them. You still have no valid reason, as this conversation has shown. You didn't check first, as you could so easily have done, and as you would have done if you'd been acting in good faith.

You've repeatedly invoked the BRD article as a reason that you reverted my work. But the article itself says 'Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.' You didn't, and still haven't. Common sense says you apply good faith and check before reverting someone else's edits for no good reason. That article also says 'BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.' Again, you aked for a discussion but you also reverted my final edit, despite BRD sayng it is not an excuse to revert more than once. And while I did go straight to discuss it and spent some time laying out my reasoning, your efforts were spent during that time in leaving me multiple messages all sayign the same thing, and eventually replying to my starting the discussion by continuing to justify your own feeble actions and blame me, rather than provide the sources you needed to make the edits. Which you still haven't provided. Finally, that article says 'BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.' I think this is what happened here. You and Cassianto watch the page like a hawk, and *any* change would be met with this sort of reaction - shoot first, do the actual research later. It's sloppy, bad faith editing, and your officiousness in bandying around policies doesn't change it. A better policy n your part would have been, and would be in future, to leave others' edits until you have checked them. Neither of you did, but deleted in knee-jerk response. This article is not locked to other editors. It's not your private fiefdom. As you are now finally realizing, but could have done if you'd taken my edits in good faith in the first place, I know a lot about Ian Fleming and have improved this article, sensibly. Edit in good faith in future, please. Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Others also know a great about Fleming, and you can also learn not just to edit in good faith, but trying to be civil in your dealings with others, which also includes not arguing needlessly when people are trying to explain what constitutes good and poor practice, and being uncivil to others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Others do, yes. On this point you're proving you don't know all that much and have a very shaky grasp of how sources work. Lycett and Chancellor are reliable sources, generally speaking. On all the points I edited the *more* reliable source is Ben Macintrye, because he wrote a book - really the book - on this operation. This is common sense. I've been very civil, considering. You initiated this. I made some sensible edits to improve the article You weren't in any way civil to me in removing them without even looking up the source first, leaving me three officious comments in the space of five minutes, one demanding a consensus discussion on something as simple as this and then, once I had laid out my reasoning, refusing to provide your sources and now not backing down and dragging it out in yet more time-wasting, presumably because either you want to save face or have some burning desire to see Ian Fleming erroneously credited with having been involved in planning Operation Mincemeat. Good practice is simple: do you research and act in good faith. You did neither. Please do so in future. Thanks.Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask you once again to be civil. I have a very good grasp of how sources work and I do not try to crowbar my personal opinion into an article on the basis of one source alone, which is what you are trying to do. I have done the research and have acted in good faith and to suggest otherwise is rather petty of you. In future, please try and accept that others have opions that may differ from yours, but that does not mean that they are there for you to ride roughshod over to ensure your own personal points of view are incorporated. I will respond no further to this: it is pointless, trite and an utter waste of time to continue this rather meaningless part of the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am being civil - you're being obstrutive and time-wasting on a simple point. You do not have a good grasp of how sources work: you raised the idea Ben Macintrye in a passing comment in a book on Fleming in 2008 saying he was probably tangentially involved in Mincemeat might be a better source than Ben Macintrye in 2010 in his full-length book about the operation. You think a single sentence by Lycett and a single para by Chancellor, neither of which offer any details or sources, are more reliable than Macintye's book about the operation. This isn't my personal opinion and I didn't add it on the basis of one source alone - I've read several books and watched several documentaries about Mincemeat and it's not in any of them. But Macintyre is the best source on the operation. His book is also the source that was already cited in the article! So it rested on one source already. It just misrepresented it. I made a simple few edits to reflect what is known in authoritative sources.Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reliable sources we use, such as Lycett, Macintyre and Chancellor, do NOT have to use inline citations linking to primary sources for us to verify each and every step they made. We assume good faith on the works of published authors. Lycett and Chancellor are also both Fleming experts too, Lycett far more than Macintyre, probably. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

They're both excellent Fleming and Bond experts - I just said that! I love the idea you have good faith to published authors - wish you'd show me some! No, of course they don’t have to have citations to primary sources, but as a later source does and writes about this for a whole chapter in what is widely recognized as the definitive book on the operation in question, rather than in one line (Lycett) or one para (Chancellor), he is clearly the more authoritative source for this particular topic. I'm pretty sure both Andrew and Henry would readily agree. The edits I made were about Operation Mincemeat. Neither of them are experts on that operation. Ben Macintyre is, and he is also an expert on Fleming. Common sense says he is clearly the better source for this information. Why do you think their vaguer, shorter, unsourced claims about the operations are more credible than the explcit, lengthy, meticulously sourced later detail in the most authoritative work about the operation there is?Jeremy Duns (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There are more sources I have to look through. Because there are reliable sources which say the opposite, we do have to take them seriously unless Macintyre plainly states that they are incorrect. So far, nothing I have provided has been refuted by Macintyre. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How can they say the opposite if Macintyre doesn't refute them? I’m sure there will be other credible sources discussing this but we have to decide which is the most credible, or whether to reflect all of them, and so on. Macintyre absolutely refutes Lycett’s passing one-line claim that Ian Fleming assisted in Mincemeat: he doesn’t mention him doing any such thing in an acclaimed and scrupulously sourced 400-page book devoted to the operation. Macintyre also directly refuted Chancellor’s claim, which was again made in passing, that the Trout Memo led to Mincemeat, but then you still don’t seem to have properly looked at Mcintytre's book, which is the source cited in the article, and which I cited. It’s chapter two, in its entirety, and he shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the broad idea of an operation like this was well known in intelligence circles at the time and even had a name – ‘the haversack ruse’ – and that Cholmondoley came up with the specific idea for the operation indepdendently three years after the Trout Memo as a result of a seaplane crash in Spain. Chancellor and Lycett are both wonderful journalists, but that doesn’t mean they've never got anything wrong or that their research cannot be superceded by someone digging deeper. Ben Macintyre is also a great journalist, and can also make mistakes, of course. But in this case, are you really arguing with a straight face that he isn't the best source on Operation Mincemeat? That seems a bit silly, especially as we only know 'the Trout Memo' from his book, and he's been given as the source for all this in the article for this for over two years. Now I’ve pointed out that his book actually says something a little different you want to use a line from Lycett and a para from Chancellor, neither of them sourced! We’re not going to reach consensus if you can’t apply some common sense to the treatment of sources! The sources for the article's statements that Fleming definitely wrote the Trout Memo, that it led to Operation Mincemeat and they he was involved in planning it all have to have more authoritative research into Operation Mincemeat than Ben Macintyre. Come on - no such sources exist. It is the most deeply researched and authoritative account of the operation.81.228.144.130 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My main reason for removing your edit was because you added information without prior consultation on the talk page. It is common courtesy to do this when the article is a FA, especially if it is to do with sources. If it is grammatical or prose based, then I wouldn't have reverted you. To do what I did is common place on featured articles I'm afraid. You should question it, discuss it, and then add it if all parties agree. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would have been courteous for you to have told me that, then, when you removed my edits, instead of your abrupt (and wrong) ‘There are primary sources cited’. You might also have done me the courtesy of taking five minutes to check the source to see if I was right. But here we are, discussing it. So you can do it now. Please do!Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, and you are who? That is what a talk page is for. Discuss, and add or Discuss and don't add. Simples! " -- Cassianto^Talk 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not for small changes like this. But fine. Stop discussing arcane Wikipedia 'courtesies' you aren't courteous enough to share with other editors and check the source, then! Ben Macintyre, Operation Mincemeat, the whole of Chapter 2. Then come back and explain to me why my edits were wrong in any way. And I'm Jeremy Duns.Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hello Jeremy! Please log on if you continue to talk here. I would hate you to be told off for socking. Please assume good faith. I find your tone rude. SchroCat, are you happy for Jeremy's edit to stay in? I think its a bit bloaty, but I will accommodate it just to lead a quite life. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sort of, although there is sufficient to retain that he assisted in the op at some stage. One of Macintyre's earlier books also states this is probably the case. - - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sufficient where? Lycett and Chancellor were writing about the entirety of Fleming's life and career - Macintyre wrote a whole book about this operation, and it is obviously a better source for precisely what happened in it and who was involved and in what capacity - it's extremely thorough and has a cast of dozens - but Ian Fleming doesn't play any role in assisting or planning the operation. As Macintyre also knows a lot about Fleming, it would be a very strange thing indeed for him to have missed, don't you think? Henry Chancellor mentioned this memo but he didn't give it its name, its date, its reference number, location, or say that Godfrey wrote it, let alone Fleming. Macintyre read the memo and it is thanks to him it is in this article and that there is another one on the Trout Memo, as he in fact revealed that it was called (and which you also want to lock my similar small, completely uncontroversial edit on until we resolve this). Macintyre gave its precise date, reference number, location - the UK National Archives - quoted from it extensively, revealed that it was signed by Godfrey and *speculated* that it had really been written by Ian Fleming. He is clearly a better source for this than Chancellor. Lycett mentioned Fleming 'assisted' the operation in his bio in 1995 but gave no evidence for it and did not expand on it at all. That's not a more convincing citation than Macintyre's entire book about the operation. And which earlier book by Macintyre do you mean? For Your Eyes Only from 2008, in which he says Fleming 'would probably have been at least tangentially involved' but offers no evidence for the assertion, no explanation for how he might have been or mention this anywhere else in the book other than in these eight highly speculative and unspecific words? Which do you think is the better source for this? The eight words in a book he wrote about Fleming's entire life in 2008, where he stated he was probably tangentially involved without saying how or giving any evidence for it, or his 400-page book published two years later after he had researched the operation in question thorougly for an entire book devoted to every aspect of it? How long do you want to run around on this for? The best, most authoritative and (for the name Trout Memo primary) source on all this is already cited in the article. It is slightly mispreresented. I made some small, sensible changes to accurately reflect what Macintyre actually wrote and to try to stop an exaggerated version spreading through what is the first Google result for Fleming. Please provide better sources than Ben Macintyre on Operation Mincemeat or let me put my edits back in and improve this article. Thank you.Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, I have already agreed that most of your changes are fine to go back in, based on the sources. However, the line in the lead "Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat" is supported by two reliable sources. Unless Macintyre specifically says that he wasn't, then it is entirely justifiable to leave it there. You cannot cherry-pick one source because you favour it over others. Neither Chancellor or Lycett use in-line citations to show their sources and that is common practice, and entirely justifiable. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

'Jeremy, I have already agreed that most of your changes are fine to go back in, based on the sources.' Did you? I missed where you explicitly stated that in your storm of acronym-throwing and bluster about not having read the sources before removing my edits. But great. So we just have the one bit left. 'However, the line in the lead "Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat" is supported by two reliable sources. Unless Macintyre specifically says that he wasn't, then it is entirely justifiable to leave it there.' No, that is is absurd. These two sources, from 1996 and 2005, mention in passing with no elaboration that Fleming was involved in assisting or planning Operation Mincemeat, but common sense tells us that they have *clearly* been superceded by Ben Macintyre's full-length book on the operation in 2010. No, Macintyre doesn't at any point state in his book 'Henry Chancellor and Andrew Lycett were wrong when they said Ian Fleming was involved in the operation'. The point is that his 400-page scrupulously sourced book devoted entirely to Operation Mincemeat is a better source about Operation Mincemeat than the single sentences in those two earlier books, and he detailed the involvement of dozens of people but didn't once mention Ian Fleming being involved in the planning of the operation. Ae you really claiming that Macintyre got this wrong because of these references in earlier books? Nobody is superhuman. Andrew Lycett's a brilliant journalist and I think his biography of Fleming is absolutely superb - it's one of my favourite books in the world, in fact, and I've told him so. But I don't think he'll mind me pointing out that everyone makes occasional mistakes. He made a few small ones, as everyone does. Do you suggest changing the page for The Poppy Is Also A Flower based on his erroneous claim that Terence Stamp starred in it? He's a very reliable source. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. There is a better source that contradicts that (the film!) and in this case there is a better source, Macintyre's book. If Fleming was involved in the operation, you need to explain why Ben Macintyre missed that out, as that's a serious omission in his book, which is widely regarded as the definitive account of the operation. You'll also need to explain why there's no mention of Fleming being involved in any of the papers to do with Mincemeat at the National Archives, where all the documents on it are housed (and which were Macintyre's primary source, along with the head planner Montagu's own private papers). And why Fleming is not mentioned in any other account of the operation, such as The Man Who Never Was. And why none of the reviews of Macintyre's book picked up this glaring omission - including Andrew Lycett, who reviewed it in The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7147974/Operation-Mincemeat-by-Ben-Macintyre-review.html Unless you can give convincing reasons for all those, I see no reason to allow this clear inaccuracy to continue to be in the article.Jeremy Duns (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, and as you have agreed, two very reliable sources mention that Fleming was involved. Nowhere in Macintyre's book does he say that Fleming wasn't involved, so we have to rely on what two independent authors have said. They would not have made up the information to include in their books, so it must have come from somewhere. As we are not in possession of the full facts—National Archive material, interview transcripts etc—then the information needs to be retained until there is a a source that refutes the information. To claim one source is any better than any other on no other basis than your own particular point of view, simply because you do not want to, is not the way that things happen on Wiki, where the reliable sources are key. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable spources are indeed key. And this information is based on the most reliable source about the operation - Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre. Macintyre doesn't say anywhere in his book that Fleming was involved. By your logic, the National Archive material would only contradict Lycett and Chancellor if at some point it stated that Ian Fleming wasn't involved! You need to answer the following before I'll reach a consensus with you on this point:

Apart from passing mentions without any elaborating details in Lycett and Chancellor's books, Ian Fleming is not stated as being involved in Operation Mincemeat in any of the following full-length accounts of the operation: The Man Who Never Was by Ewen Montagu (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1954); The Man Who Hoodwinked Hitler (BBC documentary about the operation, 2004); Deathly Deception: The Real Story of Operation Mincemeat by Denis Smyth (OUP Oxford, 2010); Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre (Bloomsbury). The National Archives have also not mentioned Fleming in any of their statements on document releases or elsewhere, such as this 2009 podcast: http://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/the-man-who-never-was/ Why do none of these sources state that Ian Fleming was involved in the operation, in your view? Is it your contention that all of these sources about the operation got it wrong, and that single vague sentences in a biography of Fleming from 1995 and a coffee-table book about James Bond from 2005 are better sources on who was involved in the operation? Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, 'Cassianto'. I found your instantaneous removal of my perfectly sensible edits without even reading the cited source (singular, not plural, as you claimed) pretty rude. What is 'bloaty' about it? I actually *removed* material and made it more concise. As it stands now:

'While working in British naval intelligence during the Second World War, Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat and Operation Golden Eye. He was also involved in the planning and oversight of two intelligence units, 30 Assault Unit and T-Force.'

I edited that to:

'While working in British naval intelligence during the Second World War, Fleming was involved in planning Operation Golden Eye, as well as the planning and oversight of two intelligence units, 30 Assault Unit and T-Force.'

At eight words less, that's less bloaty. The article as it stands:

'On 29 September 1939, soon after the start of the war, Godfrey circulated a memorandum that was largely written by Fleming.'

My edit:

'On 29 September 1939, soon after the start of the war, Godfrey issued a memorandum under his name that, according to historian Ben Macintyre, had probably been written by Fleming...'

Slightly bloaty, perhaps, at a staggering eight words longer. But, you know, *accurate*.

The article as it stands:

'Number 28 on the list was an idea to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemy; this suggestion formed the basis of Operation Mincemeat...'

My edit:

'Number 28 on the list was an idea to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemy; this suggestion is similar to Operation Mincemeat...'

It's one word shorter. But sure, if you think making the article more accurate and concise is bloaty, go ahead. But you also claimed that it had sources cited for all this, when there's only one, so perhaps we have different definitions.

Delighted to be challenged, if it's done politely and by people who have done their own homework before ripping mine up.Jeremy Duns (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously not an experienced editor, otherwise you would have known not to edit information within an FA which then throws confusion over the already established sources. Eight words is eight words; why use eight more words when the current form says it all. Bloat in my book. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For goodness' sake. No, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, as you could have learned from looking at my history - if you had done you might then have had the courtesy to explain to this new editor trying to improve the article sensibly that the Talk page would be a good place to discuss it, rather than just blindly reverting without even checking. And I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but am an experienced editor and know a fair bit about Ian Fleming. Stop being so condescending. Or I might be tempted to remark that you don't seem to be an experienced reader, as it is clear from the above that I added eight words but *cut nine*. I added the words I did because the current form doesn't say it all - that sentence is *inaccurate*. But fine, I can make it shorter:

'In September 1939, Godfrey issued the Trout Memo: it bore his signature but, according to Ben Macintyre, Fleming probably wrote it...'

Same number of words. Can I put these back in now? Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If the sources conform and if SchroCat agrees. Please discuss here in future before going ahead and adding, thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The source does conform. That's why I made the edits! You presumed I was wrong *without even checking the source*. You still haven't looked. I'll be happy to discuss in future before making small edits of eight words to articles, even though I suspect that will drive me crazy and this extraordinary attitude hasn't massively endeared me to the Wikipedia method of editing and supposedly extending good faith. I've seen better examples of good faith. Might I suggest that there would have been no harm in us discussing this in Talk without you removing my edits and then, if I had been wrong, reverting back as a result of the discussion and, well, having actually checked? This stuff's been wrong for two years - I don't see any reason, therefore, why it would have mattered if it had in fact been wrong for a few hours. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The converse is also true Jeremy: there was no harm in leaving the previous version a few days longer while the discussion progressed. It's kind of the way Wiki works in these situations, that the stable version is left in place while the new version is up for discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and think there was harm - you edited in bad faith, repeatedly, presuming my changes were wrong. No, it's not how Wikipedia works. I've made several changes to articles of this nature - I cut eight words and added nine! - and not had the stable reversion reverted. if 'this situation' had been a genuine challenge based on you knowing the sources, fine. You hadn't even read them! You reverted, repeatedly, in bad faith, and still haven't answered my question - why could you not have looked it up first, had the discussion, and then reverted if needed, thereby showing good faith?Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have re-worked the section along your lines Jeremy, although worded in a slightly more encyclopaedic way than the previous version. All else that remains is as per the accepted sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, I am losing the will to live in trying to explain the concepts of what constitutes edit warring. You appear to have a rather blinkered approach to this and don't appear to want to take any responsibility for your own actions, which you keep endlessly justifying, while painting yourself whiter-than-white. I am going to draw a line under my involvement in discussing that, as I see little rhyme or reason in such pointless circular discussions. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC) I feel precisely the same about you! The difference is that I edited in good faith, and you didn't. Please do your research next time, and always try to edit in good faith. Thanks. Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I always edit in good faith. Please do not accuse me of doing so otherwise without first reading more than one book, or without trying to see that others may have an equally valid opinion. I'll leave you with these further reliable sources, which I am sure you will cast doubts on, in your quest to ensure that your own personal opinion about sources outweighs all other considerations:

• "In 1939, Ian Fleming, an imaginative chap in Naval intelligence, drew up a list of top secret schemes ..." (from The Daily Telegraph).
• "Michael/Martin was but a prop in Operation Mincemeat, brainchild of Ian Fleming, and put into action by Cholmondeley ..." (From the BBC)
• "...great deception involved an extraordinary cast of characters including Ian Fleming" (From the BBC)

Please do your research next time, and always try to edit in good faith. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you're being deliberately obstructive, little edit to make it more palatable abnd try to head me off aside. Actually I've read several books about Operation Mincemeat: I carried out a literature review of it for a book proposal I wrote. None of the books about the operation say Fleming was involved in it. The most reliable source on the operation to date is Macintyre's book. I've also read Chancellor's and Lycett's books, and many others, too. Macintyre is still the best source for this operation. And you still need to do your research. You also need to learn how to weigh sources. All three of these online articles are in reference to a BBC documentary Ben Macinyre made about the operation after his book came out in 2010. The first article, a review of the programme in the Telegraph, doesn't even make the claim Fleming was involved in the operation, but that he wrote the 1939 memo - you've already admitted there's no proof of that and have restored my edits on it. I've seen Macintyre's documentary already but if you haven't you can watch it online. It was a one-hour TV progragamme on the operation, presented by Macintyre, and as such is clearly less of a reliable source than his 400-page book on it, which contains around thirty pages of endnotes. Television often requires a little bit of sexing up. In the book, Macintyre was very careful to say that the memo was signed by Godfrey but speculated that it was by Fleming as it bore his hallmarks. The TV programme starts with him saying the operation was 'inspired by none other than Ian Fleming' and that in 1939 'Fleming had worked on a list' of suggestions for operations. As you've already admitted, there's no proof of either of these, and the nuanced wording I changed it to reflected that. You've worded it slightly differently in reverting, but it also reflects the nuance. Weighing the two sources of Macintyre's 400-page book and his one-hour programme on the operation, common sense says the former is the better source. But neither state that Fleming was involved in the operation. One of the reasons I edited this Mincemeat stuff was precisely because Chinese whispers are so easy. In his book, Macintyre speculated that Fleming might have written the memo with Godfrey's name on it and showed a lot of evidence why it probably didn't inspire the operaton three years later. In the TV programme, where you need to be concise and exciting and there's less room for such hedging, he said Fleming had 'worked on' the list and that the operation had been inspired by Fleming. Which is the less sensational, more believable account? The book, obviously. The BBC articles you link to go by their programme, though, not the book. The first refers to the operation as being Fleming's brainchild - clearly a reference to the memo, and so not evidence he was involved in assisting or planning the operation. The second one, which is the holding page of the programme, says 'this great deception involved an extraordinary cast of characters including Ian Fleming...' This also clearly means the memo. And this is a blurb adveritising their own exciting programme on Mincemeat. The BBC is a reliable source, yes, but this sentence is not a reliable source for the notion Fleming was inolved in Mincemeat. Macintyre didn't state that in his book or his TV programme. None of these sources do, either - they all mean the memo. But Chinese whispers has led us here. And so if you Google IanFleming the first result is this article. And the second paragraph says he was involved in planning Mincemeat, with no citation given. Many will believe it as a result. But there's no credible evidence for the statement. What is your constructive suggestion here? To add a citation to a BBC page about a programme Macintyre made in which he didn't state this? Just to continue to raise obstructions until you can find an acronym to report me for? Please try to be constructive, and stop wasting both our time. This is really a simple edit - remove Mincemeat from the second para. There's no authoritative source for that. Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, This is getting ever so ridiculous, and your monumentally bad faith statement that I am trying "raise obstructions until you can find an acronym to report me for", is so far off the mark that I am going to withdrawm from this. I have already said that there are a number of very reliable and valid sources available that connect Fleming to Mincemeat. You are trying to cherry-pick your way around that, and I'm afraid that it is academically dishonest of you for doing it. The weight of references indicates that there is a connection, and just because one book does not make a direct connection between the two does not mean that there was no connection at all. If you could stop trying to waste my time too, I would be most grateful. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach consensus, as you demanded I do to make this very minor and uncontroversial edit. But you've just claimed that secondary sources about Macintyre's research are more reliable than his own research! Talk about cherrypicking. This article currently states, with no reference given: 'Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat'. What, please, is your *constructive* suggestion for the citation for that piece of information, and why do you think that those sources are more accurate and thorough than every single full-length account of this operation, none of which make any reference to Fleming being involved in planning it? Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Insulting others and accusing them of being obstructive is hardly likely to get us to a consensus. I have provided numerous reliable sources that make the connection. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you've provided two, which mention it in passing but give no detail and no sources for the assertion. But there are *more* reliable sources for precisely what happened in this operation and who was involved in it and how, such as: The Man Who Never Was by Ewen Montagu (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1954 and particularly later editions, as he named Charmes Cholmondoley); The Man Who Hoodwinked Hitler (BBC documentary about the operation, 2004); Deathly Deception: The Real Story of Operation Mincemeat by Denis Smyth (OUP Oxford, 2010); Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre (Bloomsbury, 2010). You need to *weigh* the sources on this particular point. And not a single full-length account of this operation mentions Ian Fleming in the context of being involved in planning it. Are you saying they all got it wrong? If you're not being obstructive, what is your *constructive* concrete suggestion for this, then? You demanded we reach a consensus and are now saying you are withdrawing from the conversaion. So can I revert my edit then? Or do you, I ask once again, have a constructive suggestion for a citation for the following statement: 'Fleming was involved in the planning stages of Operation Mincemeat'. Are you really saying you want to cite Chancellor and Lycett for this over every full-length account of the operation, including at least four books and numerous documentaries? Is that your position?Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ShroCat, you asked for a consensus discussion and have now withdrrawn from it. The only person challenging this was you. But I no longer have any need to reach consensus with you about this as you *withdrew from the consensus discussion*. My basis for it is in here on this Talk page. Either re-engage in the discussion here on the Talk page and try to reach a constuctive consensus - suggesting a constructive edit of your own, for example! - or leave well alone and stop edit-warring. You can't have it both ways. If you challenge this, challenge it. Otherwise, stop editing it. Jeremy Duns (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Duns (talk • contribs)