Talk:MI5

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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:

Espionage Top‑importance MI5 is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Culture / Intelligence / British / European / World War I / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force Intelligence task force British military history task force European military history task force World War I task force World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Should 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

Is 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The 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)[reply]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—39.48.211.158 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Argent information[reply]

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)[reply]

I 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)[reply]

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)[reply]