Jump to content

Talk:Cambridge Five

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 12 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 8 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Cold War}}, {{WikiProject Espionage}}, {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom}}, {{WikiProject Socialism}}, {{WikiProject Soviet Union}}, {{WikiProject United Kingdom}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject University of Cambridge}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cala971.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alwhela1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing book[edit]

The article mentions several fiction books on the subject but misses one by P Kerr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Kerr The Other Side of Silence. London: Quercus, 2016. ISBN 978-1-78429-514-1, set in 1956

the book mostly discuss Burgess and McLean and there is a transcript of an extensive "debriefing" of Burgess DBelin (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A small question of number[edit]

On looking at the lead, I felt it could benefit from some copyediting [1]. Fwiw, I was some surprised to find the sing/pl choice for "none" [of them] so controversial. After thinking a bit more critically about the sentence in context, I've tried this, though I can imagine that might be a bit controversial too (as it may implicitly call into question the completeness of our current knowledge). Fwiw, 86.186.168.233 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My profuse apologies.[edit]

I wrote 'were' in place of 'was', thinking it something that had gone unnoticed, rather than intentional. Out of curiosity, what is the implied semantic difference? Euphemios (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]