Talk:Guy Burgess

message: He was in ROLD novelizaiton.
-----
His Soviet cryptonym was Hicks. C 08:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel, spycraft 

message: (flit: clarification)
After he was unmasked as a double agent, Burgess moved to Moscow on a moonlit flight with Donald Maclean
this should read 'Moonlight-Flit'.  Meaning that they ran away in the night.  (flit is past tense of fly), meaning that they furtively left their lodgings, during the night, with all bills and accounts unpaid. ie swindlers.Miletus (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moonlit flight 

message: This article needs some inline references to specific sources. DGG (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: If there was a Plymouth Vs. Portsmouth competition on who ruined Britain the most, who would win? Even if Burgess is no match, I already feel proud to be born in Plymouth.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burgess vs. James Callaghan 

message: I have removed the "Legacy" section. It contained a random collection of bits of information that weren't really about his legacy, but just had been published a long time later. I've redistributed them to where they fit in the chronology.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Previous uncited text said it was the Royal Automobile Club; according to Andrew Lownie it was the Romilly Club. There might be some difference in versions, but I don't think it matters.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accident at club 

message: I have removed this as it was unreferenced and seem to be an unnecessary duplication.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: I've been researching Burgess, on and off, for the past eighteen months and have recently made good progress towards expanding the article's content. The first fruits of my labours will be posted soon, although I expect the reconstruction work to continue for a good many more weeks. Comments and suggestions welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've more or less finished my draft expansion. Subject to a few ongoing tweaks, I'm letting it rest for a while, in anticipation of a full review early in the new New Year. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Yes that works. Actually the UK legal definition of treason, dating back to the Treason Act 1351, includes "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere", which would seem to catch Burgess nicely. I see from your edit history you have a pattern of massive removals on espionage subjects, which get promptly reverted. It is better to discuss them first. There are not that many references to his homosexuality - if they were removed LGBT editors would soon show up to express their outrage at this censorship. The article is heavily referenced, and Burgess was (rather unlike Philby & the others) not reticent about his story once in Moscow. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to treason, the definition is broader than that — see High treason in the United Kingdom. However, the King or Queen's enemies are legally defined as enemies in some kind of hostility (see Halsbury's Law of England). At no time when Burgess was operating was the USSR at war with Britain. In fact, for some of the time it was a wartime ally. George Blake and Klaus Fuchs were not charged with treason.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted to pre-Holzman edits. The  issues he raises are for discussion, not occasions for wholesale removal of cited text. I suspect Mr Holzman has a strong POV; I read his book a few years ago, and have just reordered it to read again. Meantime, in accordance with WP policies, he should state his specific objections here, so that amendments to the text, if required, can be on the basis of agreement.  I, and I'm sure others, will be interested in what Mr Holzman has to say. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this explanation. It is Wikipedia's policy to base articles  on what the sources say; as you can see, this article relies heavily on the two most recent Burgess biographies, and much of the material to which you object is found there. (You also removed non-contentious material such as the footnote explaining the nature of the successive Soviet security organisations). I will look carefully at each of your objections, as will others, but I'll wait until I've had the chance to re-examine your book – which  was actually the first of the recent Burgess books that I read, but that was five years ago, before I had considered doing serious work on this article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I rather think that what printing I get will be what the library from which I've ordered sends me. Meanwhile, you say in an earlier posting: "My main concerns with this article have to do with the categories of homosexuality and the use of words like "treason," "traitor," "treachery," and the like".  The word "treason" appears once, in the sense of Burgess "rejecting the notion that his earlier activities represented treason". The word "traitor" also occurs once, but only to record Burgess's denial of the term. "Treachery" appears twice, first to state that Burgess was not suspected of it, and secondly in relation to the Rees People articles of the 1950s. Nowhere in the article is it stated that Burgess committed treason, or was a traitor, or indeed was treacherous except to record a journalist's opinion. I   will look again at that latter wording, although in general I did choose my words with deliberate care on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the old Indian historical scholarship, which they have been putting out for over a century, and has been pretty exclusively what is taught in the Indian education system since Independence. But it's having a bit of run in the West recently. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My copy of the Holzman book has arrived (it is the second edition). I'll read, and comment in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: After the dearth of Burgess biographies ended with Holzman (2013), Lownie (2015), Purvis & Hulbert (2015), not to mention Macintyre's 2015 book on Philby, we now have almost an embarrassment of riches, plus a new book by Richard Davenport-Hines, Enemies Within. I believe this should be studied, and have ordered a copy. Brianboulton (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: It never rains...

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: ::::::This facet of his character is alluded to here and there, but was actually a constant and defining feature of his life. Coral Browne reports that during her contact with him in Russia, he was more or less constantly in varying degrees of drunkenness. Not sure if this should be amplified, or perhaps even given a separate header. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be a separate section, but more information could be added.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcoholism 

message: In the text, there is at least one not true statement. Guy Burgess recruited Philby, not opposite. 178.237.221.21 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guy Burgess was not recruited by Kim Philby. 

message: Why would poor eyesight preclude a career in the Navy as an executive but not as an engineer? In the absence of an explanation, this seems to me to undermine the credibility of the view that he left because of a defect in his eyesight.Bill (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that seems wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The executive branch provided the fighting crew of a ship, the officers being eligible for promotion to command of a ship or to flag (admiral's) rank. Burgess's eyesight rendered him 'medically limited' and therefore unsuitable for service in the executive branch. The same defect would deny you A1 rating in the army or air force so you couldn't become an infantry or aircrew officer. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Eyesight