This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Richard Tomlinson 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 |
![]() | Richard Tomlinson has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 19, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia has no policy against linking to copyrighted material; if it did there could be practically no links. Besides, cryptome offers the book for download with Tomlinson's consent. If you do not believe this, take it up with Cryptome. 86.151.37.17 ( talk) 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why was the blog closed?
Tomlinson said in his entry of July 29, 2006, that "If Special Branch return to me all my possessions and give me some undertaking that they won't raid me again without good reason, then I will take down this list and blog."
Typepad confirms that they shut the blog down; they claim unspecified Terms of Service violations. It could have been done by order of Special Branch, upon reaching agreement with Tomlinson, or it could have been done unilaterally. Typepad says it is "not at liberty to discuss the matter".
keep up the good work 84.92.246.41 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if the gag order from SIS can be verified as the real reason the new blog and first blog at blogger.com from Richard Tomlinson (ex MI6 agent) was first blocked and then deleted. Also I would like to know if someone can verify the other blog on blogger.com that was edited with 2 or 3 posts removed really belonged to the real Richard Tominson.
It's possible the creator of this blog could have been a fraud and the input of the blog does not at all look like they were from Richard Tomlinson. The post with the letter from Metropolitan Police was put on the blog without blocking the address and there are claims that Tomlinson's hard drives were returned, but there has been no proof from CPS or SIS that this really happened.
The back-up blog doesn't look any more credible than the new one, so he might have originally created the blog, but what proof is there he is the one who controls its input?
It is suspicious that Richard Tomlinson was allowed to create another blog on blogger.com due to the fact he violated their user agreement and would not have been allowed to.
Please let me know if the blogs are proven to belong to Richard Tomlinson, the CPS or Metropolitan Police did return the hard drives, the gag order from SIS really was the reason why the first blogger.com blog was first blocked and then deleted, and if the next blogger.com blog that was just edited of 2 or 3 posts does actually belong to him and he is the one in control of its input. The back up blog also looks suspicious and I would like to know if it can be verified if it is really Richard Tomlinson who has control of its input.
Thank you.
The blogs are genuine. You ask a lot of questions, but this is not an enquiry service. Many people would like to know many things. If the information on Wikipedia is not enough for you, feel free to do further research. Your comment above is unsigned - if it was you that deleted the links, kindly desist from deleting content simply because you have personal doubts about it. 86.145.0.194 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not delete any links from this post. This is a type of enquiry service, so there is no reason to complain if someone asks a question. It is an enquiry service edited by volunteer information just like yours came as. If the freedom of readers on Wikipedia in too much for you, feel free to do further media control elsewhere. You left no name either, but since you know so much, why don't you say why he deleted his blog, lied to everyone through it, and if he's dead or alive because that is the new rumor going on about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletdaisies ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In September 2008, MI6 acknowledged that they had no grounds to dismiss Tomlinson, and that his dismissal from the service was due to their poor management practices at the time. MI6 dropped all legal objection to the publication of "The Big Breach", released the proceeds from the publication to Tomlinson, and admitted that their previous legal actions against him were unfounded. However, they still refused to reinstate Tomlinson in MI6, or compensate Tomlinson for the loss of his career, or even help him find alternative employment, though Tomlinson can now travel freely to the UK.
Do you have a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.12.67 ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I was in 2ReP FFL about 2000 with RT - he was under a different name then. I learnt his real name about 2006 when i saw him workingin a yacht brokerage in antibes, France. I see him occasionally in France and he is now a pilot i believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbiskit ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The Increment has been redirected to this article due to a lack of independent sources past Tomlinson's books, the version here may have material that could be incorporated into this article. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Big Breach, "Increment" is just MI6 internal name for 22 SAS Counter-Revolutionary Warfare wing. If you google CRW, there is plenty of information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.113.92.170 ( talk) 09:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Phrases like "best recruit" and "rarely given" seem to come from Tomlinson himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Or it could equally have come from "The Big Breach"?
"However he instead applied for and won a Kennedy Scholarship to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., where he obtained an S.M. in Technology policy."
If he was a Kennedy Scholar at M.I.T in 1986/87ish, he would have been a contemporary of
David Miliband who was also a Kennedy Scholar at M.I.T at the same time. It would be mildly ironic if it could be confirmed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chaoticwikimagic (
talk •
contribs) 05:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, followed by the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Overall, this looks like a good start, and I think with some work this can get to GA status. The article is fairly detailed, though in a few key places it needs to be better sourced. I've had to immediately remove several of the paragraphs dealing with criminal charges without sourcing per WP:BLP. [1] Were these recent additions? I'm surprised these weren't caught prior to GA nomination. I'm also concerned that a few sources appear to be misrepresented in a way that portrays MI6 in a negative light. Details below--thanks again for your work on this one, and I look forward to working with you to improve it.
Just a few comments on the early paragraphs here. More to follow...
More:
This article is making progress toward Good Article status. But on further review, I'm concerned with the extent of the sourcing problems I'm seeing in this article:
Other sources, like #4, #23, and #43, appear to have no online presence at all outside of Wikipedia, despite being from major publications/agencies that have a large web presence, which worries me that they've been misidentified.
In short, while I respect the work that's already gone into this article, it appears to me to still need significant work before passing as a Good Article, beyond the scope of a normal review. I'd suggest a check of all the sources to make sure their language is not copied, and that the information given in the article indeed appears in the given sources. I'd also recommend that all information related to criminal or legal proceedings be clearly cited to reliable secondary sources. I wish everybody the best of luck in continuing to improve this one; I hope my copyedits and some of the recommendations of this review will prove helpful. Thanks for all your efforts, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The autobiographies of most former spies are suspect. Tomlinson's doubly so. He was not actually a full agent, being on probation only. Did he actually "succeed [sic] in penetrating the Iranian Intelligence services"? This seems unlikely of a sulky newcomer who was assessed as a liability by others 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 04:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Farrtj ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Unlike other claims made by Tomlinson about Britain's spying activities in the early 1990s, his evidence on this operation is viewed as being genuine because of his personal involvement. His testimony contains information that only an insider would know. It also has been corroborated by third parties.
Was George Temple, "aide-de-camp to the head of MI6"? The head of MI6 is not a general, so would not have ADC's? 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 01:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a review of this article. North8000 ( talk) 01:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Congratulations. This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 ( talk) 11:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Reviewer
(I am "repeating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded)
Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 ( talk) 11:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer
The article is inconsistent - it writes in an early paragraph that he was imprisoned for five months, and in a later paragraph for four months.
In the Big Breach, Tomlinson claims to have spent six months in HMP Belmarsh. This would be consistent with his sentence of 12 months, because at that time, sentences of less than four years were automatically halved if the prisoner behaved well in prison.
Also, is it true that he spent some time in French Foreign Legion? There are some references to this elsewhere on the internet, but not well sourced. It might explain why he is a fluent French speaker and lives in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.69.5 ( talk) 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I am the subject of this article. I don't think it ethical to edit the article myself, but would like to contribute a few points here, and will leave others to edit the article if they consider it appropriate.
Firstly, I would like to point out that the source for all articles in the UK national press attempting to justify my dismissal was SIS itself. As I argued at the time, if they could brief their contacts in the media about me, then there was no reason why they could not also present the same arguments to an employment tribunal, where I would have a chance to defend myself. As evidence of how unreasonable and amateur SIS personnel management was at the time, I have uploaded here a copy of their 1995 letter of dismissal.
Somebody asked how long I was in prison - the correct answer was that I was sentenced to 12 months in prison but was released on licence after six months. Somebody asked if I was in the Foreign Legion - I was not. Feel free to ask any other questions. RJCTOMLINSON ( talk) 15:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Richard Tomlinson 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 |
![]() | Richard Tomlinson has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 19, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia has no policy against linking to copyrighted material; if it did there could be practically no links. Besides, cryptome offers the book for download with Tomlinson's consent. If you do not believe this, take it up with Cryptome. 86.151.37.17 ( talk) 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why was the blog closed?
Tomlinson said in his entry of July 29, 2006, that "If Special Branch return to me all my possessions and give me some undertaking that they won't raid me again without good reason, then I will take down this list and blog."
Typepad confirms that they shut the blog down; they claim unspecified Terms of Service violations. It could have been done by order of Special Branch, upon reaching agreement with Tomlinson, or it could have been done unilaterally. Typepad says it is "not at liberty to discuss the matter".
keep up the good work 84.92.246.41 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if the gag order from SIS can be verified as the real reason the new blog and first blog at blogger.com from Richard Tomlinson (ex MI6 agent) was first blocked and then deleted. Also I would like to know if someone can verify the other blog on blogger.com that was edited with 2 or 3 posts removed really belonged to the real Richard Tominson.
It's possible the creator of this blog could have been a fraud and the input of the blog does not at all look like they were from Richard Tomlinson. The post with the letter from Metropolitan Police was put on the blog without blocking the address and there are claims that Tomlinson's hard drives were returned, but there has been no proof from CPS or SIS that this really happened.
The back-up blog doesn't look any more credible than the new one, so he might have originally created the blog, but what proof is there he is the one who controls its input?
It is suspicious that Richard Tomlinson was allowed to create another blog on blogger.com due to the fact he violated their user agreement and would not have been allowed to.
Please let me know if the blogs are proven to belong to Richard Tomlinson, the CPS or Metropolitan Police did return the hard drives, the gag order from SIS really was the reason why the first blogger.com blog was first blocked and then deleted, and if the next blogger.com blog that was just edited of 2 or 3 posts does actually belong to him and he is the one in control of its input. The back up blog also looks suspicious and I would like to know if it can be verified if it is really Richard Tomlinson who has control of its input.
Thank you.
The blogs are genuine. You ask a lot of questions, but this is not an enquiry service. Many people would like to know many things. If the information on Wikipedia is not enough for you, feel free to do further research. Your comment above is unsigned - if it was you that deleted the links, kindly desist from deleting content simply because you have personal doubts about it. 86.145.0.194 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not delete any links from this post. This is a type of enquiry service, so there is no reason to complain if someone asks a question. It is an enquiry service edited by volunteer information just like yours came as. If the freedom of readers on Wikipedia in too much for you, feel free to do further media control elsewhere. You left no name either, but since you know so much, why don't you say why he deleted his blog, lied to everyone through it, and if he's dead or alive because that is the new rumor going on about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletdaisies ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In September 2008, MI6 acknowledged that they had no grounds to dismiss Tomlinson, and that his dismissal from the service was due to their poor management practices at the time. MI6 dropped all legal objection to the publication of "The Big Breach", released the proceeds from the publication to Tomlinson, and admitted that their previous legal actions against him were unfounded. However, they still refused to reinstate Tomlinson in MI6, or compensate Tomlinson for the loss of his career, or even help him find alternative employment, though Tomlinson can now travel freely to the UK.
Do you have a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.12.67 ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I was in 2ReP FFL about 2000 with RT - he was under a different name then. I learnt his real name about 2006 when i saw him workingin a yacht brokerage in antibes, France. I see him occasionally in France and he is now a pilot i believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkbiskit ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The Increment has been redirected to this article due to a lack of independent sources past Tomlinson's books, the version here may have material that could be incorporated into this article. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Big Breach, "Increment" is just MI6 internal name for 22 SAS Counter-Revolutionary Warfare wing. If you google CRW, there is plenty of information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.113.92.170 ( talk) 09:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Phrases like "best recruit" and "rarely given" seem to come from Tomlinson himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Or it could equally have come from "The Big Breach"?
"However he instead applied for and won a Kennedy Scholarship to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., where he obtained an S.M. in Technology policy."
If he was a Kennedy Scholar at M.I.T in 1986/87ish, he would have been a contemporary of
David Miliband who was also a Kennedy Scholar at M.I.T at the same time. It would be mildly ironic if it could be confirmed. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Chaoticwikimagic (
talk •
contribs) 05:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, followed by the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Overall, this looks like a good start, and I think with some work this can get to GA status. The article is fairly detailed, though in a few key places it needs to be better sourced. I've had to immediately remove several of the paragraphs dealing with criminal charges without sourcing per WP:BLP. [1] Were these recent additions? I'm surprised these weren't caught prior to GA nomination. I'm also concerned that a few sources appear to be misrepresented in a way that portrays MI6 in a negative light. Details below--thanks again for your work on this one, and I look forward to working with you to improve it.
Just a few comments on the early paragraphs here. More to follow...
More:
This article is making progress toward Good Article status. But on further review, I'm concerned with the extent of the sourcing problems I'm seeing in this article:
Other sources, like #4, #23, and #43, appear to have no online presence at all outside of Wikipedia, despite being from major publications/agencies that have a large web presence, which worries me that they've been misidentified.
In short, while I respect the work that's already gone into this article, it appears to me to still need significant work before passing as a Good Article, beyond the scope of a normal review. I'd suggest a check of all the sources to make sure their language is not copied, and that the information given in the article indeed appears in the given sources. I'd also recommend that all information related to criminal or legal proceedings be clearly cited to reliable secondary sources. I wish everybody the best of luck in continuing to improve this one; I hope my copyedits and some of the recommendations of this review will prove helpful. Thanks for all your efforts, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The autobiographies of most former spies are suspect. Tomlinson's doubly so. He was not actually a full agent, being on probation only. Did he actually "succeed [sic] in penetrating the Iranian Intelligence services"? This seems unlikely of a sulky newcomer who was assessed as a liability by others 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 04:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Farrtj ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Unlike other claims made by Tomlinson about Britain's spying activities in the early 1990s, his evidence on this operation is viewed as being genuine because of his personal involvement. His testimony contains information that only an insider would know. It also has been corroborated by third parties.
Was George Temple, "aide-de-camp to the head of MI6"? The head of MI6 is not a general, so would not have ADC's? 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 01:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I am starting a review of this article. North8000 ( talk) 01:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Congratulations. This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 ( talk) 11:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Reviewer
(I am "repeating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded)
Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 ( talk) 11:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer
The article is inconsistent - it writes in an early paragraph that he was imprisoned for five months, and in a later paragraph for four months.
In the Big Breach, Tomlinson claims to have spent six months in HMP Belmarsh. This would be consistent with his sentence of 12 months, because at that time, sentences of less than four years were automatically halved if the prisoner behaved well in prison.
Also, is it true that he spent some time in French Foreign Legion? There are some references to this elsewhere on the internet, but not well sourced. It might explain why he is a fluent French speaker and lives in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.69.5 ( talk) 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I am the subject of this article. I don't think it ethical to edit the article myself, but would like to contribute a few points here, and will leave others to edit the article if they consider it appropriate.
Firstly, I would like to point out that the source for all articles in the UK national press attempting to justify my dismissal was SIS itself. As I argued at the time, if they could brief their contacts in the media about me, then there was no reason why they could not also present the same arguments to an employment tribunal, where I would have a chance to defend myself. As evidence of how unreasonable and amateur SIS personnel management was at the time, I have uploaded here a copy of their 1995 letter of dismissal.
Somebody asked how long I was in prison - the correct answer was that I was sentenced to 12 months in prison but was released on licence after six months. Somebody asked if I was in the Foreign Legion - I was not. Feel free to ask any other questions. RJCTOMLINSON ( talk) 15:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)