This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MI5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
MI5/SS Logo
editShould the MI5/SS logo be mentioned in this article? I believe it is pre-1955 but have also read that it was used from the 1950's to 1970's. Any more information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.24.33 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 January 2009
MI5 Agents Can Murder, Kidnap and Torture
editIs anyone against stating this important fact in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.3.218 (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's probably a bit more nuanced than that. I think it would be better to sort out the section "MI5#Participation of MI5 Agents in Criminal Activity first - the lead is only a summary of the article. I also think one might need to be careful not to exaggerate what is known. For example, the recent "Third direction" tribunal makes very clear that MI5 might have the power to do some things, but this does not mean they are immune from prosecution. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
"Government Communications Planning Directorate"
editThe Guardian is reporting that Whitehall uses this title to refer to MI5. Should this, and also the organisation's involvement in the development of drone-supported covert surveillance technology, be included in the article? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Coordinate error
edit{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—39.48.211.158 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Argent information
- You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Knights and Dames
editI have the impression that directors of this and similar agencies are generally knighted. I don't know what the ladies have done to them when they are raised to the Damehood, Wikipedia's capital D, but reasonable, I suppose. They are raised, certainly, but that doesn't tell us raised to what.
Is the word "ennobled"? I have had the feeling that this applies to barons and up, but this could be wrong.
My point here, however, is that in the list at the bottom of the page, a couple of men are identified as "Sir" Faffington Blunderbuss or whatever, but all the males are sirs. Both the ladies who have been Directors of MI5, Director of Military Intelligence, M, or whatever it is this week, are Dames, but are not identified as such in the list.
Sorry, I don't have the solution -- other than adding "Sir" to all the males, simply to keep the parallelism straight, and then to add the corresponding adjustment, presumably "Lady," to the two ladies. DavidLJ (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- The names should be stated as they were when the persons were in office. If they did not receive the knighthood / damehood until after they left office the prefix should not be included. Dormskirk (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)