Jump to content

Talk:Sidney Reilly: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 76: Line 76:
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. [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267913/britnatsummary.pdf ] 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. -- [[User:Urquhartnite|Urquhartnite]] ([[User talk:Urquhartnite|talk]]) 06:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
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. [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267913/britnatsummary.pdf ] 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. -- [[User:Urquhartnite|Urquhartnite]] ([[User talk:Urquhartnite|talk]]) 06:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


:If, the stated, "He claimed to be the son of an Irish merchant seaman, an Irish clergyman ... " were true, then he automatically held status as a [[British subject]] through descent from an Irish father, 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.149.55.0|95.149.55.0]] ([[User talk:95.149.55.0#top|talk]]) 08:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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, 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.149.55.0|95.149.55.0]] ([[User talk:95.149.55.0#top|talk]]) 08:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 08:39, 26 August 2017

Controversial figure status

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)[reply]

I unlinked Andrew Cook as it went to the wrong page.

Henry Troup 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

D'Arcy affair

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)[reply]

Norman Thwaites

Simpson (1992) p.334 says that Reilly was recruited by British Intelligence in World War I New York by Lieutenant-Colonel Norman G. Thwaites. Simpson cites West (1986) p.215. I have repeated this in the Robert Liversidge article. Any views or thoughts? Cutler 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simpson, A. W. B. (1992). In the Highest Degree Odious: Detention without Trial in Wartime Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-825775-9.
  • West, N. (1986). GCHQ: The Secret Wirless War 1900-1986. London.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Reilly wasn't 'recruited'. He offered the British his services, and the British accepted.

Italics

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)[reply]

SIR Ian Fleming

Fleming was never knighted: he died too soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.48.118 (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a model for Bond

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 (talkcontribs) 09:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The James Bond article on Wikipedia contradicts itself many times in various places. In an image caption, the article states, "Sidney Reilly, The Ace of Spies, is often considered the archetypal muse for Bond." And yet this assertion is contradicted in the same article by another unsourced statement. Such problems are the result of tampering by multiple editors. As for the claims in this Sidney Reilly article, I cited the source and that source claimed Sidney Reilly was a model for Bond. -- Flask (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Andrew Cook stands out

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


The Gadfly

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

He

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)[reply]

Reilly and the position of British nationality law pre-1914 and '15

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. [1] 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)[reply]

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, 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)[reply]