Talk:British military intelligence systems in Northern Ireland

Untitled

It strikes me that this is a poorly researched article. I can find no references as to the existence of a "Joint Surveillance Group" nor a JACUNI, for example. Can any one verify these organisations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.250.153 (talk • contribs)

Re-adding of unsourced material

I spent some time previously assessing the available sources and removing all of the material that wasn't adequately supported, either due to only an incidental mention or no mention. This has all been readded with the assertion that the Campbell source was adequate. I'd like to ask for clarification of that as I would disagree.

ALR (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I disagree with your assessment. In assessing the article, did you read the book "The Irish War" cited as the main source, and its extracts from official army documents? Did you read Mark Urban's "Big Boys Rules", cited by Campbell?

Having been involved as a court expert, as a result of which he was provided with classified documents, Duncan Campbell is in a good position to judge whether Geraghty was a fantasist. But the entire tone of his article (and the entire basis of the Official Secrets trial) is that this material would be substantially correct.

I agree, for WP in 2009 detailed page citations would be nice. But that is a reason to look up the page cites, not to remove the whole lot. Jheald (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had another look at the declared sources and I remain unsatisfied that they allow the level of detail in the article at the moment, and I now question the verifiability and notability of the topic anyway. All of this detail appears to be based on an extract from a leaked, classified strategy paper, so single sourced. It may be reasonable to caveat this to list the allegations, but I'm skeptical of including the amount of detail, particularly when some of the claims are completely outlandish.

ALR (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Noticed this edit a while ago but did not change it since im reluctant to edit war, however I strongly agree with Jheald's comment. I was particularly alarmed to see ALR describe himself as "a commander" in the Parachute Regiment on his talk page, surely this represents some kind of interest conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.92.189 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Attention to detail, there is a significant difference between Military Command, as in having military command over someone and being a commander in ....... I make no claim to be in, or ever have been in, the Para Reg. I do have some standards. Also the Para Reg don't have Commanders, at that level they have Lieutenant Colonels.

Still, notwithstanding your position on me as an editor, you haven't addressed the reliance of this article on a single, unverifiable, source.

ALR (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Note. The relevant pages from Geraghty's book can be found on a Cryptome mirror, here. The present article seems to do an entirely reasonable and fair job of summarising them.

I am curious as to what claims ALR thinks are "completely outlandish". It seems to me that given the technology available in the 1990s, the security services would be failing in their mission if they were not undertaking intelligence gathering approximately as described. What the article add are comparatively mundane details of names, dates and structures. Jheald (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Having authored the bulk of the article in question im curious what the objection is? Article is uncited? False. Source material is "outlandish"? While its your viewpoint you would need to find a published credible source. Agree with Jheald on this one, wikipedia relies on material backed by credible sources, I believe Geraghty (journo & author) meets that criteria.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy999 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 March 2009

There are a number of issues, and again you haven't addressed the main one:

• Geraghty is not an inherently reliable source. He has interpreted an extract from a source and layered on his own speculation. We have no way of assessing how he has corroborated the information from the document or his claimed interviews. verifiability
• There are a couple of points where he is, specifically, wrong in his statements. The detail isn't substantive to this article however for me it calls into question a lot of the rest of his speculation and commentary.
• Geraghty takes a general system that may, or may not, be exploitable from an intelligence perspective, and as a result it makes it into this article as an Intelligence system. All data is exploitable by a collector or analyst, that doesn't make the data intelligence material.
• The article does a lot more than summarise Geraghty, it adds to his speculation and attempts to add context, without any apparent foundation. original research
• It largely doesn't matter what your assessment is of the state and ability of technology at the time and how the in-theatre entities may or may not have used it, the sourcing is the important part and that's not reliable.

The article is essentially an essay on Geraghtys claims, not an article on any systems in the Province. It may be appropriate to retitle it, or move the content to his biographical article.

ALR (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"The article is essentially an essay on Geraghtys claims" well exactly. I found your claims about Geraghty highly interesting. You have the (bonafide) ex Para down as speculative, "wrong", unreliable, etc. and try to paint him as some wild eyed fantasist liar. Interesting ideas but still only your views. The time you may have spent on original research is cherished but your views on Geraghty's ability, and the source material/witness(es) he relies on, to repeat, do need to be backed by a person or organization that can be cited here. Are they?

Can you demonstrate that Geraghty is reliable in the context of Wikipedias verifiability policy?

Can you demonstrate any corroboration of his claims?

Given that the article is based on a single source, itself not inherently reliable, can you demonstrate that the topic is sufficiently notable that single sourcing is an adequate jutification to be as extensive as it is?

I assert no opinion on Geraghty, however he makes a number of fairly basic mistakes which, for me, call into question the rigour of his research. Essentially it demonstrates that whilst he may have been Para, he probably did not have any professional insight into the intelligence system in the province. None of that is all that important as the policies which apply are Verifiability and Original Research anyway.

I would appreciate if you could focus your attention on the discussion with respect to the Wikipedia policies. Note that I assume that you also the IP edit above.

ALR (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Vengeful computer was discussed in the London magazine Time Out as long ago as 1980. The next year, the IRA captured its operational instructions. It obtained an up-to-date set in January 1998. Details about Crucible had been revealed in a 1992 book, Big Boys Rules. Its author, BBC reporter Mark Urban, cleared his book with the MoD."[1] This is silly.

I invited you to demonstrate, not cut and paste from a bland newspaper article that's discussing the application of the Official Secrets Act. That doesn't corroborate since it only refers to the sources. One might consider Urban as corroboration, but we have no clarity of audit trail, did Geraghty use Urban as a source, did he use the same sources as Urban? I wouldn't say that was adequate to demonastrate other than single sourcing.

A side by side look now, rather than my last review of both sources on the train, indicates we're probably into copyright violation territory as well.

I return to the previous points; demonstrate Verifiability, demonstrate corroboration, although I would add the need for independent corroboration, demonstrate notability.

ALR (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:N. Yes. The topic has been discussed in several books.

WP:RS. A reliable, third-party, published source. Credible published material with a reliable publication process; its author regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand? Yes, I think a book by a Sunday Times chief correspondent, with 20 years journalistic experience on the ground, considered sufficiently serious to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act should pass that.

WP:V. Do the claims in the article match what is in the source? Yes.

WP:COPYVIO. Under U.S. law, facts cannot be copyrighted, only their expression. This article summarises the facts from the book, it does not lift the way it expresses them. No case to answer.

So, as far as WP policy goes, the article is compliant. Now, if there are points of accuracy you can improve, let's get to it. Jheald (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jheald.

I disagree that the article, as it stands, is compliant with policy. Policy can be interpreted in several ways, and I am somewhat more stringent about my interpretation of it. I think that what we can say is fairly light;

• Int systems exist(ed) in the province. I'm not sure that's something that anyone would challenge.
• Authors and journalists claim to know the names, and some function of them.
• According to said journalists the names, and functions might be...

With respect to policy and why I think this article, as it stands, rather overplays the authority of the single source it uses:

• Notability also expects substantive treatment, rather than passing mention. A number of documents making passing mention is probably enough to say that systems exist, it needs something more to state anything categorical.
• Notability also expects that the treatments be independent. The article uses one source and whilst a second is mentioned there is no demonstration of independence.
• I'll address Verifiability first, as RS underpins and complements it, rather than the other way round. The fact that Geraghty makes the claims is verifiable based on the publication of the book. The claims that Geraghty makes are not verifiable because he hasn't made his sources available. He uses an extract from a classified document. However we can say that these are his claims.
• In terms of his reliability, he is a journalist with a short period of experience as an infantry soldier. He claims no experience or authority as either an Intelligence Officer or soldier, therefore his level of authority is clear. In his brief experience as an infantry soldier he may have undertaken a Tactical Questioning course, but that's probably his only exposure to the collection world. To add to that, TQs would not be exposed to the type of thing that he's talking about as they are purely a light, low quality, crude collection mechanism.
• To address the inference that the attempted prosecution suggests authority is quite a leap. The attempted prosecution did not endorse the material that he wrote. Just that he was in possession of an extract of a classified document and that he then included elements of that in his book.
• The copyvio point only really came to me when I re-read the Cryptome copy and the article in quick succession. Chunks of the article are word for word copies, with some padding. That rather explains why it reads strangely. I'm not disputing that the source can be used to inform the article, but it should be written about rather than copied. I hadn't noticed when I read the hard copy as I wasn't reading them both closely together.

As it stands the article tries to suggest that the single source that it is reliant upon goes further than it does, is authoritative and that it's accuracy is unquestionable. I would prefer that the veracity of the source be reflected in the text, not treated as gospel. Stylistically in this area I'm uncomfortable with going further than we can be sure the sources say, but could probably stretch the article to about three paragraphs.

There is probably a further question, as raised in a discussion about single sourcing in the RS noticeboard, as to whether it is notable enough given the paucity of reliable sources on the topic.

ALR (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on sourcing quality and representation

Ongoing discussion as above about representing the available source in this article. There is disagreement about interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Notability, Verifiability, Reliable Sources, Copyright and Original Research.

Views on how to best represent the quality of the source in the article would be useful.

ALR (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My position, captured from above to avoid having to reread the whole thing is that policy can be interpreted in several ways, and I am somewhat more stringent about my interpretation of it than appears to be being applied in this instance. I think that what we can say is fairly light;

• Int systems exist(ed) in the province. I'm not sure that's something that anyone would challenge.
• Authors and journalists claim to know the names, and some function of them.
• According to said journalists the names, and functions might be...

With respect to policy and why I think this article, as it stands, rather overplays the authority of the single source it uses:

• Notability also expects substantive treatment, rather than passing mention. A number of documents making passing mention is probably enough to say that systems exist, it needs something more to state anything categorical.
• Notability also expects that the treatments be independent. The article uses one source and whilst a second is mentioned there is no demonstration of independence.
• I'll address Verifiability first, as RS underpins and complements it, rather than the other way round. The fact that Geraghty makes the claims is verifiable based on the publication of the book. The claims that Geraghty makes are not verifiable because he hasn't made his sources available. He uses an extract from a classified document. However we can say that these are his claims.
• In terms of his reliability, he is a journalist with a short period of experience as an infantry soldier. He claims no experience or authority as either an Intelligence Officer or soldier, therefore his level of authority is clear. In his brief experience as an infantry soldier he may have undertaken a Tactical Questioning course, but that's probably his only exposure to the collection world. To add to that, TQs would not be exposed to the type of thing that he's talking about as they are purely a light, low quality, crude collection mechanism.
• To address the inference that the attempted prosecution suggests authority is quite a leap. The attempted prosecution did not endorse the material that he wrote. Just that he was in possession of an extract of a classified document and that he then included elements of that in his book.
• The copyvio point only really came to me when I re-read the Cryptome copy and the article in quick succession. Chunks of the article are word for word copies, with some padding. That rather explains why it reads strangely. I'm not disputing that the source can be used to inform the article, but it should be written about rather than copied. I hadn't noticed when I read the hard copy as I wasn't reading them both closely together.

As it stands the article tries to suggest that the single source that it is reliant upon goes further than it does, is authoritative and that it's accuracy is unquestionable. I would prefer that the veracity of the source be reflected in the text, not treated as gospel. Stylistically in this area I'm uncomfortable with going further than we can be sure the sources say, but could probably stretch the article to about three paragraphs. There is probably a further question, as raised in a discussion about single sourcing in the RS noticeboard, as to whether it is notable enough given the paucity of reliable sources on the topic.

ALR (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

I altered the wording in this section as - as far as I know - Geraghty and Wylde were only accused of Wylde being Geraghty's source. I am unaware of any proof. Herneshound (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Herneshound