Wikipedia:Peer review/Guy Burgess/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guy Burgess[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

.

I've wanted to tackle Burgess for years, but I was put off by the lack of weighty biographical sources. Then in 2016 two new biographies followed hard on the heels of a new Philby biography, so I felt I had no further excuse. For various reasons I've needed a while to do the work, but I think I've taken the draft as far as I can, without some outside imput, hence this request for peer review comments. All suggestions welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Here's the lot. Only minor issues.

  • "louche behaviour." I would link louche to a definition.
  • I find dictionary links a bit intrusive, so I've reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although not himself yet suspected of treachery," I think you could get away without "himself"
  • "The couple settled in the naval town of Devonport where, on 16 April 1911, their elder son was born, later christened Guy Francis de Moncy.[3]" you might want to consider getting rid of the "later".
  • "Isvestia" more commonly Izvestia?
  • "He was trusted sufficiently to be used as a back channel of communication between the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, and his French counterpart Edouard Daladier, before and during the 1938 Munich negotiations.[73]" Only the single conference took place in Munich, at which Chamberlain and Deladier were both present, so I don't see how Burgess could have done much right then. Do you mean the run-up to Munich, the three trips Chamberlain made to Germany?
  • "He informed them that the British government saw no need for a pact with the Russians, since they believed Britain alone could easily defeat the Germans.[79]" That doesn't seem consistent with Chamberlain's attitude in the Munich crisis, nor in accord with the Chiefs of Staff report that Britain's military options were limited. Does this mean, in a later war once there had been further rearmament?
  • It's what Burgess reportedly told the Russians, not necessarily what Chamberlain and the Joint Chiefs actually thought. However, it is consistent with the government's apparent determination to avoid a pact with the Russians – witness how, in the tripartite negotiations of August 1939, they sent a low-level delegation under the incomparably named Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, which took six days to get to Moscow and had no authority to act when it got there. To an extent, what Burgess said does reflect some British complacency prevalent at the time. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""when meeting his KGB counterpart in a pub," Wouldn't his counterpart in the KGB be whoever was doing the spying for the British?
  • I ran across some suggestion on Wikia that Burgess's recall from Washington might have been arranged so he could be available to escort Maclean across the Iron Curtain. Anything in the bios agree?
  • The bios consider this possibility, but generally reject the notion that Burgess's recall could have been arranged by the KGB in this way. They had other, more conveniently placed resources to deal with the MacLean problem, should the need arise. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to pursue his personal affairs" given his louche-ness and all that, this might be taken as a pun, especially with the "pursue"
  • "postmarked South London" The postmark probably didn't say "South London", so possibly "in South London"?
Well done. I've been looking forward to reading the completed version of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these observations, which I've dealt with as above. No comment means I've followed your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, Brian, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a couple of minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Citations "Fisher 2016", but "Fisher 1995" in the References
  • in the Citations "Modin 1985", but "Modin 1995" in the References
As it happens, my sfn error script flagged those, so I've corrected those minor glitches.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for spotting and fixing these. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Fascinating read, all the more so given the use of an appealing and pacy writing style. These are mostly trivial suggestions,

  • There are quite a few "had been"s; removed one or two, but more could be rephrased as "was", "were" etc
  • Zapped some more, left a few where the context seemed to require it and also a couple within quotes. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: diplomat and Soviet agent, a member of the Cambridge Five spy ring that operated from the mid-1930s to the early years of the Cold War era. - not sure this flows correctly; should it be "as a member of...", or "Soviet agent; he was a member". - "that operated " - operational?
  • caused disruption and demoralisation in Britain's foreign and diplomatic services that lasted for years - caused long lasting disruption..., rather than for years?
  • He was recruited by Soviet intelligence in 1935, on the recommendation of Kim Philby - is the comma needed
  • a stint briefly interrupted by a spell two colloquialisms; maybe rephrase "stint", or say "interrupted by a period"
  • Tried to rephrase this, but couldn't find anything that read better. I don't think that "stint" and "spell" are sufficiently colloquial to be considered unencyclopaedic. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further reading" lacks publisher info; do you intend on retaining this section?
  • Probably not, but if I do I'll bring the formats up to standard> Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later Ceoil (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blunt was then persuaded by Burgess that he could best fight Fascism by working for the Russians" - could more be made of this in the article. Its wonderfully perverse logic, and common then I know. Did Burgess believe it himself?
  • Lots of people, particularly young intellectuals, thought that communism was the only effective answer to fascism. I'm sure Burgess did believe it; with his background and connections he could have had a much easier life had he conformed to type. Brianboulton (talk)
  • Do we know why Rees did not turn in Burgess. I assume he was got to, but did it ever emerge? Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two possible reasons. (1) he did not want to draw attention to his own communist activities prior to 1939, and (2) there was an unwritten understanding among that circle that one did not betray one's friends. It's interesting that when Rees did denounce Burgess and MacLean in his 1956 articles, and his prewar closeness to the Cambridge ring was revealed, it cost him his job as principal of the University College of Wales, and his career never recovered. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say who Melinda Maclean was
  • In the immediate aftermath the Foreign Office made nothing public,[159] the story finally breaking in the Daily Express on 7 June - would be interesting to say how the story become public Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story became public because the Daily Express broke the story. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for these comments – most helpful. No comment means I've adopted your suggestions or something close. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SN54129[edit]

Very late to the party I'm afraid, which means, of course, by the time I get here it's looking FA already...only things that might come up are the refs in the source review (arch links, identifiers etc), and perhaps some WP:ALTTEXT for the images. Apart from that, this is looking realy good. Thanks! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alttext is not mandatory, and also is all or nothing ("some" altext will lead to decrys of inconsistency). Note, from my experience in art history, its best avoided as it can become a pathway to OR and subjectivity. Ceoil (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, not mandatory (at least, as mandatory as everything else in a guideline...), just useful for screen reading (of which I have to say, I've no experience at all). To clarify, when I said "some" I admit I actually meant "all"—just being polite. As to OR, my understanding is that any alternative text should be so basic (examples given are "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush", which should avoid the danger. I agree it might be a slippery slope; but that the slope WP is on from now on, I think, and whatever one's opinnion, things like this will become increasingly called for. Thanks for the clarification though, ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "An active homosexual" – I don't wish to get too technical about this and bring a blush to your innocent cheek, but I'd be cautious about the phrase "active homosexual". In one sense it clearly just means at it like knives, but in another – contrasted with "passive" – it is an indicator of who does what, and with which, and to whom. I'm not sure what alternative to suggest though. "Assiduous" is a touch judgmental. Perhaps "practising"?
    • "Although well provided for materially, his health deteriorated" – this seems to imply a causal link (dear God, I typed "casual kink!") that I'm not sure is really there. And now I look again, there is a minor grammatical problem here too: it was he not his health that was provided for.
  • Cambridge
    • "he rubbed shoulders with" – a bit of a cliché perhaps? Not offensively so, but I just mention it.
    • "he heard the historian Maurice Dobb, a fellow of Pembroke College address the Trinity Historical Society" – looks to me in need of a comma after "College"
    • "Communism: a political and Historical Theory" – capitalisation looks a touch random
  • Recruitment as Soviet agent
    • "Madchen", meaning "Girl" – not without an umlaut it doesn't (here or in the info-box)
    • "both men were active homosexuals" – see comments on lead.
  • BBC first stint
    • "David Footman, whom they knew was an MI6 officer" – I don't think you want "whom" here. It is grammatically nominative, not accusative.
  • BBC: second stint
    • gossipping – I think "gossiping" has only one "p" usually.
    • job titles – there's a question of consistency of capitalisation here. Earlier we have "the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain" but now we meet the Lord Chancellor and a Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  • London
    • "over 2,000 photocopied pages" – photocopied? In 1947? Really?
    • "diplomatic postings.".[128]" – I'd be inclined to lose one or other of the full stops, probably the first.
  • Washington
    • "had foisted him on them by ." – not quite sure what's gone wrong here, but it ain't right.
    • "Korean War" – worth a blue link, probably.
    • "exfiltration" – I say! I had to get the dictionary out for that one.
  • Departure
    • "a weekend channel cruise on the steamship Falaise" – as this is a Boulton article I suppose they could count themselves lucky the bloody ship didn't sink.
Or run off to British Guiana!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline and death
    • "having finally been unmasked – having been officially exonerated" – repeated phrase
  • Assessment
    • Though I adored Single Spies (I saw the author play Blunt in the West End) I doubt if a line from a comedy has the weight and authority to justify featuring in this quote box. In passing, if you are going to quote it, oughtn't you use the play's title – An Englishman Abroad or A Question of Attribution, whichever the quote is from – rather than the title of the double bill of which it formed half? (I already have my tickets for the new Bennett play in August at the Tower Theatre, gloat gloat.)
Struck that comment having looked at the published scripts and twigged that it is a quote from Bennett's introduction rather than from either play. Tim riley talk 15:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In his 1959 CBS interview" – you mean CBC. CBS is either what is now Sony Classical or a corned beef sandwich.

A shameless homosexual who drank too much! I can't imagine why you've asked me to review this article. I enjoyed it extravagantly, and was of course delighted to see Sir Osbert playing a cameo role. Ping me at FAC, if you please. Tim riley talk 18:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought (brain catching up with eyes): GB is described as British tout court in text and info-box. Just checking that he wasn't granted Soviet citizenship after taking up residence in the USSR. Tim riley talk 19:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with all your judicious comments in the manner that you would wish. I will spend more time looking over the prose, as it's surprising how easily things get overlooked. On the question of citizenship, I've read nothing anywhere to suggest that, unlike Philby, Burgess was either granted or offered Soviet citizenship – indeed, in his exile he made rather a fetish of being British. Many thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A pedant writes: ?? "CBS (an initialism of the network's former name, the Columbia Broadcasting System) is an American English language commercial broadcast television network that is a flagship property of CBS Corporation." Still going strong surely? Although this particular reference is to CBC. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have left this peer review open, in the hopes of attracting a wider range of comment, but there has been no activity for almost a fortnight. I intend to approach one or two editors whose opinions I would particularly value, and so the review will remain open for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DavidCane[edit]

  • Family Background
    • Malcolm Burgess's promotion to Commander was gazetted on 28 July 1916, effective from 30 June 1916.
    • "...their elder son...". This indicates that Burgess had at least one younger brother. No mention of siblings elsewhere in the article. Is it recorded what he had in this regards?
    • Info re MB is interesting but not really relevant here. I've added a few words about the sibling. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childhood and schooling
    • To explain his starting at Dartmouth when he was 14 in 1925, it might be worth adding a note to indicate that in Guy Burgess's time, the Royal Naval College was effectively a boarding school for naval cadets with an entry age much lower than today's 18.
  • Postgraduate
    • Our Fighting Navy has an article you can link, though this and IMDB give the year of release as 1937 not 1933. Is this the correct film/name? Why was the showing protested? I'm guessing it was seen as "imperialist" or "war-mongering".
    • The reason for the protest was indeed that the film was considered military propaganda, and I've explained this. Our article on the film presumably dates it from the IMdb source, but IMdb is frequently inaccurate. Perhaps the film was reissued in 1937, but the protest is precisely dated to November 1933 in at least three scholarly sources. I don't see much point in linking to an article that is factually wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably Wiley's book was The Seventeenth Century Background: Studies in the Thought of the Age in Relation to Poetry and Religion
  • Recruitment as Soviet agent
    • "Early in 1934 Arnold Deutsch, a longstanding KGB agent". The KGB was not formed until 1954. In 1934 Deutsch would have been a member of the OGPU or NKVD.

--DavidCane (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • My error. I corrected several other premature references to the KGB – thank you for pointing this out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BBC first stint" and "BBC: second stint"
    • Section titles formatted differently - one has a colon the other not.
  • In the Soviet Union

--DavidCane (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for these points. I've dealt with them as noted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All looks good. Spooky coincidence; I was just looking at the British Railway article and, as one does on the wikipedia, followed a link on a image page to its source which was a 1951 British Railways slide lecture (Powerpoint's great grandfather). One of the slides shows the Falaise which I thought you might be interested in using. The page from the lecture is here and someone has recently saved it Commons at File:British Railways filmstrip (42).jpg. --DavidCane (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks indeed. It's a great picture, and would do far better than the anodyne view of St Malo, but I'll need to check whether it meets US-PD criteria which are sometimes hard to fathom. Nikkimaria, can you help here? Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The UK government has declared that the expiration of Crown copyright applies worldwide, including in the US, so this isn't a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki, for the good news! I'll add the picture. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

In general excellent.

  • "was a British radio producer, intelligence officer, diplomat and Soviet agent" - certainly not in order of importance, and not even chronological, given he was recruited by the Soviets first.
  • It is chronological, except for the Soviet recruitment bit, but I agree somewhat misleading as a snapshot of who he was. I have struggled over this; the ODNB entry defines him simply as "spy", which I think is not enough. I'll simplfy to "a British diplomat and Soviet agent", and see how that stands. You are welcome to suggest or indeed apply any alternative you think is better.Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link article is not very well referenced, and is particularly vague about the early 1930s. Of the sources that I've used, Lownie says that the Cambridge University Socialist Society (CUSS) had been formed in 1931 by Harry Dawes, an ex-miner. Purvis and Hulbert refer to "the University Labour Club [which] by 1934 had become the Cambridge University Socialist Society (CUSS)". So the picture is inclear, but the point is not pivotal and I'm inclined to leave things as they stand. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Fighting Navy - not it seems a "recruiting film" as such, just a normal feature film the RN helped with in hope of encouraging recruitment.
  • There is some confusion here. IMdb dates the film as 1937, as does our article on the film. I assumed this to be a mistake, since the Cambridge demonstration is recorded as taking place in 1933. However, I checked further, and found that the female star was born in 1918 and would thus have been far too young in 1933. So I'm inclined to think that there was a short recruitment film under that name or something very similar, shown in 1933, and that the linked feature film is another matter entirely. So I have removed the name of the 1933 film and left it anonymous: "In November 1933 he and other left-wing students demonstrated at a local cinema against the showing of a naval recruitment film, which they considered military propaganda." Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cambridge War Memorial, Hunger marches, University don not linked. Soviet Union lkd here not above.
  • "Finally recognising..." - para a bit long?
  • "Pursuing their main objective, the penetration of the British Intelligence Services, Burgess's controllers asked him to cultivate a friendship with the author David Footman, who they knew was an MI6 officer" Lk British intelligence agencies and certainly MI6. Possibly Track II diplomacy for "back channel".
  • "since they believed Britain alone could easily defeat the Germans" - referenced, I know, but seems an odd British view for 1938. Surely at least the French were regarded as necessary?
  • This has been questioned by another reviewer – see Wehwalt, above, and my response there. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times, Operation Barbarossa (for "Germany invaded Russia in June 1941"), Operation Unthinkable, Berne, Zurich, Prague, Treasury, Glasgow, Shakespeare Memorial Theatre Company = RSC, Guardian - no lks
  • "date set for MacArthur's November 1950 offensive across the 38th parallel" - according to UN Offensive, 1950, which might be a better lk, "on October 9 the Eighth Army crossed the 38th parallel near Kaesong", and Korean War says "On 1 October 1950, the day that UN troops crossed the 38th parallel,..." (China intervenes section).
  • "Anthony Eden, when the former and future British Foreign Secretary" odd way of putting it as he was a future PM?
  • Well, he was all three, but I suppose future PM trumps the others.
  • You don't actually say when the story of "the missing diplomats" broke - my impression is that it was an absolutely massive developing story, at least in the UK, and the article underplays this. Aren't any of the front pages available as images?
  • I say "In the immediate aftermath the Foreign Office made nothing public, but the press was suspicious and the story finally broke in the Daily Express on 7 June. That seems clear enough. I've not looked at the contemporary press headlines, but I'm pretty sure that the sensational headlines all postdate 7 June. The Guardian first mentions the story on 8 June. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 3 "His mother produced a leter "

That's it. It would be great, while you have it in your head, if you could add to the deplorable Cambridge Five, which has had 23K views in the last 10 days (has The Crown reached it?). I've quickly added a bit, but more overview & refs would be great. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these thoughtful comments. You will see from my longer notes how I've addressed some of the points you've raised. Otherwise I've added numerous links and made several minor fixes as required. As to the Cambridge Five article, I am somewhat bogged down at present but when I find a few moments I will look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks - see you at FAC Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iridescent[edit]

This is the version on which I'm commenting; as usual when I do PRs, I've not looked at any of the above comments so there may be some repetition. On the assumption that this is on the way to FAC, and that all those above have already spotted any major issues, all comments are with "minor quibble and nitpick" set to maximum.

  • General point; throughout, the article uses "Russia" as synonymous with "Soviet Union". I'm well aware that this is standard in both British and American English, but I guarantee that if this goes on the main page you'll be deluged with complaints. To East Europeans calling Latvians, Ukrainians etc "Russians" is as offensive as calling Scots "English" or Pakistanis "Indians".
  • I've dealt with most of these, substituting "Soviet Union" or "Moscow" where appropriate. one problem is that there is no convenient adjectival form for "Soviet Union"; thus, I feel I can describe Tolya Chisekov as "Russian" Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox photo should probably be dated (its Commons description page is, unhelpfully, just "before 1951").
  • That info is a bit helpful. I've searched for any information on a precise for this image, without success. In general, the only dateable images of Burgess are from his Cambridge days in his pink youth, or post-1956 in Moscow when he was an overweight slob. This one, probably taken in the 1940s, is probably more typical of the mature Burgess. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says as a result of his lifestyle [in Moscow] his health deteriorated, but the body text just says Burgess suffered from increasing ill-health, and in 1961 was treated in hospital for ulcers and hardening of the arteries without any discussion of the cause. (Alcoholism and a fatty diet certainly increases the risk of arteriosclerosis, but one can live the life of an Olympic athlete and still suffer from it.) Assuming that a source specifically says that his lifestyle caused his medical conditions, it should either be included in the body text, or this will need to be one of those cases where we cite in the lead.
  • I've added a bit more in the text, reflecting the source which specifically relates Burgess's ill-health to his lifestyyle of inadequate food and excess booze. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the point of the The Burgess family's English roots can be traced to the arrival in Britain in 1592… sentence—the family's Huguenot name gave them a sense of being outsiders—but it's surely nonsense. The Huguenots weren't one of the immigrant groups like Sephardic Jews who only married within their own community; surely after 350 years of assimilation the family was as Anglo-Saxon-with-a-touch-of-Viking as any other. (This is a very petty quibble, and I won't oppose at FAC on the grounds of it, but the "the direct male line determines one's ethnicity regardless of everyone else in the family" fallacy is one of my pet peeves.)
  • You are broadly right, but I think the point about Huguenot roots in the family is worth making. Not only does it give some provenance for the unusual "de Moncy" name, but according to the source: "This ancestry was important to [Burgess] and he was to equate the flight of his Huguenot forebears to Britain for conscience's sake in the 17th century to his own journey to Moscow three centuries later". Do you think that's worth mentioning? Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have (or can find) a photo of the family home in Plymouth, that would probably be more use to illustrate the section on his childhood. Everyone likely to be reading this is already aware that Eton is a big posh school, but seeing the family home generally expresses better than words the kind of lifestyle they would have led.
  • This is the very place, per google maps! If anyone in the Plymouth area cares to photograph the house, I would be delighted to upload it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we any idea what the eye condition that prevented him joining the navy was? I'm struggling to imagine any condition that would render one's eyesight insufficient for the executive branch, but would still be sufficient for engineering.
  • Executive officers required perfect eyesight, engineering officers apparently less so. After Burgess's unmasking, rumours were spread that "poor eyesight" was a euphemism for theft or homosexuality; note 3 deals with this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was not universally liked…; have we any idea of the ratio of "conceited unreliable shit" to "amusing and good company" among his contemporaries? As written it's not clear whether he was a charmless oaf who nonetheless had a couple of cronies, or a well-loved character who happened to have a couple of enemies.
  • I suppose you would say he was a bit of both, though the charm appears to have faded quite early – the article is peppered with references to "a snob and a slob", "scruffy and rather fond of the bottle", and we have Harold Nicolson's note of his decline by 1949. I have a rather gruesome story, which I've not included in the article, of Burgess's attempts to seduce the teenaged Brian Sewell, when the latter was an intern at the Courtauld Institute in 1950. Nevertheless, Burgess obviously retained some social graces (vide Eden, Washington 1950). I've tried to maintain a balanced view in the article, reflecting how he is depicted in the main sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But political activity began to take its toll…—I don't really understand this part. Communism isn't a disease; why would joining the Cambridge University Socialist Society make him so ill he was unable to complete his papers?
  • I have added some explanatory detail. Political activity can be exhausting, and can certainly "take its toll" on one's physical stamina, as I discovered when doing my A-levels all those years ago. In his third year Burgess exhausted himself with his political activities, neglected his studies, sought to compensate by over-cramming and with drugs. Small wonder that the presssure of the examinations brought about his collapse. I've slightly amplified the text.Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "a hail of pro-war eggs and tomatoes" is in quote marks, but should probably specifically say who said it (at least as a footnote) to make it unambiguously clear that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. To be aggrieved about a perceived lack of respect for the war dead is certainly not synonymous with being pro-war.
  • Embracing the views of the far right … to penetrate the British Intelligence Services—I don't understand this. If Burgess was trying to sell himself as the kind of stable clubbable chap who'd rise within the British establishment, why pretend to be an extremist Nazi-sympathising crank, rather than a more mainstream liberal or conservative?
  • The Liberals had largely disappeared as a political force by the mid-1930s, and many of the "mainstream" Conservatives were, if not Nazi-sympathisers, by no means totally hostile. Burgess was no doubt being typically histrionic in demonstrating the greatest distance possible between his student communism and his new found right-wingery. Whether this was wise, who knows, but that is what he did. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We must have a picture of the old Broadcasting House building somewhere that doesn't include either the modern glass-and-steel monstrosity next door, or a Toyota minicab prominently in the foreground. They're both surprisingly effective when it comes to breaking the sense of the time the article up to now has been carefully building.
  • I've searched in vain for a free image of the BBC building as it stood prewar. I've now replaced the image with another which, although modern, doesn't have the glass and steel extension, or the Toyota. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was trusted sufficiently to be used as a back channel of communication between the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, and his French counterpart Edouard Daladier, during the period leading to the 1938 Munich summit—have we any idea of the circumstances here? If Chamberlain wanted to communicate with Daladier, it would seem an odd choice to choose "use a prominent Nazi sympathiser as a go-between" instead of "telephone call".
  • "Back channels" are secretive means of off-the-record communication, with which neither Chamberlain nor Daladier would have wished to be associated directly. Burgess by 1938 obviously impressed MI6 sufficiently to be entrusted with this task; his flirtation with the British far right would not have identified him as a "prominent Nazi sympathiser". The establishment no doubt placed much greater emphasis on his Etonian credentials than on any odd political associations. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've spent much of the preceding article detailing Burgess's professed sympathy for Hitler, his visits to Germany etc; why would MI6 choose him as their representative on the committee dealing with anti-Nazi propaganda?
  • I don't think I've spent much of the preceding article "detailing Burgess's professed sympathy for Hitler". As I've said, his antics with the far right in the mid-1930s would not have seemed outrageous at the time except perhaps to his former communist colleagues. But really, you're asking a question that I can't possibly answer. It was MI6's decision to employ him in this way. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a foolish question, but do we have any idea of the actual mechanisms by which Burgess passed information to Moscow? The article is peppered with "enabled him to send Moscow important details" and the like, but presumably he didn't just mail postcards to the Kremlin; other than a passing mention of meeting a controller in a pub, there's no indication as to either how he actually worked, or how the Russians paid him without being detected. (The one that particularly caught my eye is transmitted to Moscow the contents of 693 files, a total of over 2,000 photographed pages, which to my eye makes it sound like he sent Stalin a fax message.)
  • I imagine he met his controllers regularly (how else could he have received payments from them? – they could hardly have posted him traceable cheques) and passed them the photographed documents. The sources, however, are somewhat inspecific.
  • Have we any idea why Maclean and Burgess took such an elaborate planes-trains-and-automobiles route to get to Moscow? East Germany didn't start sealing the Iron Curtain until 1952; they could have just driven or walked across the border.
  • I'm not sure that it was that easy to travel around Europe in 1951, particularly if one wished to remain incognito. Travel was somewhat slower in those days. They needed false papers, and had to move furtively. For all they knew, an immediate hue and cry might have been raised following their departure, leading to their arrest at a border. Anyway, this is the route they took. According to Burgess's unreliable account to Driberg, the pair improvised the journey all the way through; this seems highly unlikely. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Burgess] had not expected that his stay in Russia would be permanent; what exactly was he expecting? Was he planning on going back home, or was he hoping to relocate somewhere like East Germany where he was more familiar with the language and culture?
  • He imagined that he could return to England, and was prepared to brazen out a MI5 interrogation. I've added that to the text. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was he perceived in the USSR and its successor states? The article is illustrated with Philby's face on a postage stamp; did Burgess get the same kind of heroic status back in Soviet times? (Given his open homosexuality, I imagine it's safe to say that Putin's propaganda machine finds him something of an embarrassment.)
  • Burgess did little to impress the Soviet leadership; as the article indicates, in the Soviet Union he lived the life of an idle, complaining drunk. In my view they showed considerable tolerance in putting up with him long after he had ceased to be useful. Philby was granted various state honours – the Order of Lenin, KGB colonel – but this, Macintyre argues, was more to bluff the British into believing that Philby was far more important as an agent than he actually was. Amusingly, Macintyre also mentions a British plot to award Philby a posthumous KCMG, to bamboozle the Soviets into thinking that he had been serving our country all along (the government wouldn't agree, sadly). I don't think that the current Russian regime cares very much about either Burgess or Philby. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting article about an interesting character; aside from the above (all of which are very minor nitpicks), the only issue I'd raise is that it doesn't give much information about the man himself outside of work and politics; there's little feel for his hobbies, interests, musical tastes etc. I imagine this is an artefact of what the sources say, rather than an omission, and as such isn't something over which I'd oppose. ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these thoughtful comments. I will address them over the next few days; for the moment I am treading water as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and am not contemplating a rapid move to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent Above are my answers. As to your comment about Burgess's leisure activities, I think sex and drinking just about sums it up, though he enjoyed reading Jane Austen. Again, my sincere thanks to you for providing an opportunity to rethink certain parts of the article, which I'm sure is all the better for it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm leaving this review open a little longer, while I further investigate Michael Holzman's 2012 book, which might provide some further useful insights. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The results of my investigation of the Holzman book are found on the article's talk page, including a lengthy discussion with Mr Holzman himself. I'll close this review early next week unless there is further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Guy_Burgess/archive1&oldid=1138561670"