Talk:Sidney Reilly

message: Given the variety of books about Sidney Reilly and the contradictory evidence concerning his life and exploits, I have added the controversial tag to this talk page. Be wary not to delete or purge statements from the article, but instead append more information that contrasts or contradicts the statements, facts or supositions given. We may prefer having a collage that includes and caters to all the different viewpoints and opinions; otherwise, the article will eventually become bogged down in edit wars over what is the truth behind every little incident or was he really in such and such a place or was he in fact somewhere else, etc. -- Flask 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial figure status

message: I unlinked Andrew Cook as it went to the wrong page.
Henry Troup 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Cook Link

message: The link goes to Charles Fothergill (May 23, 1782 – May 22, 1840) who was dead before Reilly was born. 
144.136.178.130 (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fothergill Link

message: The whole section on the D'Arcy affair is *completely* contradicted in Daniel Yergin's book "The Prize" sbandrews (t) 13:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: D'Arcy affair

message: Can anyone see a reason for Ozone Preparations Company and Rosetta Street to be italicized? I can't. Alpheus (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics

message: Fleming was never knighted: he died too soon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.48.118 (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SIR Ian Fleming 

message: The claim on this page that Reilly served as a model for Flemming's character contradicts what the page James Bond says, precisely the opposite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkintaro (talk • contribs) 09:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a model for Bond 

message: The image :Image:Williammelville.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Williammelville.jpg

message: Looks like Andrew Cook generally contradicts all the historians before him, while he is the latest and probably least informed. He seems to be bent on representing Reilly as a cartoonish mega-villain. Also his account of the Battle of Port Arthur is completely different of the mainstream accounts. 114.78.215.177 (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Richard Deacon is equally as contradictory as Cook. It would be fair to say that all the Reilly historians are contradictory. In my opinion, Cook provides a much needed counter-balance to the numerous claims of Lockhart. Hopefully, as more historians examine Reilly, we will have more viewpoints to add to the article. -- Flask (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Cook stands out 

message: Passing thought - could Errico Malatesta, 'an acquaintance of an acquaintance' of the Voynichs be a source? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gadfly

message: Any chance someone with more time than I have could copy-edit the whole article and insert some personal pronouns where needed, so the name "Reilly" doesn't appear and re-appear multiple times in every paragraph? The name only has to appear ONCE early in each paragraph, then "he" and "his" will do fine for the rest of the par, provided no other names appear, in which case use "Reilly" one more time to avoid confusion. 58.164.116.135 (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  He 

message: I have quickly realised that I had erred, earlier this morning, in that the status of the British subject before the years 1914/15 could in fact be acquired in the United Kingdom, by means of naturalization, by means of the issuance of a certificate of naturalization, by the Home Secretary, without requiring the applicant for naturalization to seek the enactment of a private and personal Act of the British Parliament.  There however seems no record of such Home Secretary's certificate of naturalization ever being issued under or containing the name of Sidney or Sidney George Reilly, anywhere, certainly not in TNA/PRO, in Kew, Richmond, TW9, according to their online catalogue of records. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If, the stated, "He claimed to be the son of an Irish merchant seaman, an Irish clergyman ... " were true (Reilly is an Irish surname), then he automatically held status as a British subject through descent from an Irish father pre-1922, hence no naturalisation papers would be needed, nor found, and he would have only needed to apply for a British passport to be granted one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reilly and the position of British nationality law pre-1914 and '15 

message: gets a reference in this article but no link to his bio which is here: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Alexander_Hill
100.15.117.207 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Alexander Hill 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sidney Reilly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115195722/http://www.mi6.gov.uk/output/Page50.html to http://www.mi6.gov.uk/output/Page50.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040122003003/http://www.sidneyreilly.com/ to http://www.sidneyreilly.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sidney Reilly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827143304/http://www.sis.gov.uk/output/Page50.html to http://www.sis.gov.uk/output/Page50.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Andrew Cook does not merely concede that four individuals named Karl Hahn were employed at the Krupp works in Essen in either of the two years in which Lockhart claimed the theft occurred. He points out that of these four, two were employed several years after Reilly's supposed heist, and only one at the originally claimed date of 1904, based on Thyssen-Krupp's extensive personnel archives. He also points out that all four were still working at the plant in 1925, the time of Reilly's disappearance or death. Furthermore, the fact that Cook accepts the existence of a factory fire brigade at the Essen works is hardly support for Lockhart's claims, as it's a matter of record in multiple places that such a unit existed. It's akin to saying that Cook conceded the existence of Krupp in the first place hints to doubt on his part.
This entire section is far too reliant on the wildly credulous claims made by Lockhart in his writing, which has been shown to be naive, at best. In fact, the first two paragraphs cite Lockhart alone, which is hardly conclusive given that the other authors appear to belong to the camp which trusts Lockhart's account more or less implicitly. More qualifiers and better referencing is needed here to avoid giving credence to what is, essentially and by all appearances, a fantasy. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealing weapon plans 

message: Reilly's success as a spy may have been due to a disability he never knew he had - high level autism.  If this is so, he could only find any true piece in death, as he could only think in pictures and would have been haunted by whatever he had discovered in his travels to his dying day. 50.101.76.222 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reilly and Autism