Talk:United Kingdom intelligence community

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles

Military history: British / European Stub‑class

This redirect 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

Stub

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

New overview of UK intelligence operations[edit]

This page aims to address the broad issues of the British intelligence community, such as the relative scope of MI5 and MI6 (as mentioned here). Starting with the list of key agencies shown at the global List of intelligence agencies, it should help deal with some of the ambiguities that the present atomised articles fail to cover well.

Please let's use this Talk page to discuss.

Note that the equivalent page United States Intelligence Community is a constituted organisation. I don't think Britain has any equivalent, hence the lower-case title. Earthlyreason (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this article bring to the encyclopedia[edit]

The UK doesn't have an intelligence community per se, at least not in the same way that the US has. There are a number of bodies which have a range of roles. As it stands this article is merely a cut and paste of the List of intelligence agencies article, so doesn't appear to add anything.

I'm unconvinced that there is adequate sourcing to actually discuss a community as a single entity and would tend to suggest this article should probably be deleted.

ALR (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a self-described British intelligence community and a top-down overview (see here and here).

The article should briefly indicate the various agencies' roles, and show how they interrelate. There is a set of basic intelligence objectives that each country meets through different combinations of agencies. Then this is the ideal place to show the British approach, and perhaps compare it to others.

The existing articles can provide the bulk of the source material. Then this one is an explanation of how they fit together and the relative importance of each, drawing on the abovementioned primary sources.

Finally, the article gives scope to include a history of the development of the intelligence community, where past arrangements were more than simply forerunners of existing agencies.

I will write this all up if no one else does.

Earthlyreason (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I remain unconvinced. The first page you link to is a Cabinet Office site and the second one is quite out of date.

Personally I'd suggest that the bulk of the material should probably be on the JIC page, or at least one on Cabinet Office ISR, which sets the policy and direction, rather than on the more general concept. The majority of the material on the CO site, which is managed by ISR anyway, is already in Wikipedia, in the articles which refer to the various organisational entities.

The history of intelligence operations in the UK does indeed encompass more than is currently written about, but I'm unconvinced that this is the most appropriate approach.

ALR (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation for the Security Service[edit]

I have never heard 'BSS' used as an abbreviation for the Security Service. Even their website makes no mention of it. As contentious unsourced information, I have tagged it as such. ninety:one 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but not in material that's unclassified.

ALR (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My previous was a bit rushed over breakfast. Anyway, what evidence are you looking for that the abbreviation for the Security Service is BSS rather than SS? I rather think that it'll be a struggle to find something that states it explicitly, but I have seen, and indeed written, BSS as an abbreviation for them many times. It's usually in meeting minutes or in documents that are at the very least Restricted, but equally I wouldn't see ephemera as passing the requirements for reliability, and access precludes passing verifiability.

The only real point of interest is that it's BSS (British Security Service) rather than SS (Security Service) despite the fact that the normal name is Security Service, not British Security Service. I have no idea what the reasoning might be, I could speculate but I suspect nobody knows for sure.

Given the trivial nature of the point is fact tagging the point of any real value?

ALR (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's published it's unverifiable and should be removed per WP:V. The reason for the possible use of 'BSS' - though I'm not sure why you're not saying it - is because 'SS' commonly refers to the Nazi organisation. ninety:one 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because unless you're acknowledging that BSS is the normal abbreviation for the Security Service then you're speculating as to the reason in the same way that I would have been?

I have no idea, although I would surmise that is the reason. I have no idea when the usage started, all I do know is that it is used. However as you rightly observe without an unclass source, that is not ephemeral, that can't be demonstrated.

ce la vie

ALR (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Value of this article[edit]

I remain unconvinced on the value of this article and have come fairly firmly to the view that it doesn't belong here. The Prod that I placed on it was removed, with the justification that The British Government use to describe the Intelligence and Security Agencies. The evidence for this is the use of the term in a section header on a section of the Cabinet Office website.

There are two issues, one is that this contains no more than the template which appears at the bottom. It is a list of links to already existing articles describing each of the Intelligence and Security organisations and agencies in the UK. The second is that the relationships between them are described under the Joint Intelligence Committee article, although as I've already indicated previously it may be more appropriate to place it under an article about the Intelligence, Security and Resilience secretariat.

This is also a, now reduced, cut and paste from the overarching list of intelligence agencies by country. It presents a configuration control risk in that the two lists can quite quickly diverge.

Can anyone see any purpose to this article that is not already covered by the list by country, the template and the individual article pages?

TIA ALR (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, it is little more than a list. That's fine, there are plenty of lists. Over time, it may develop into a full-blown article. 'There's a template with the same information' is not a reason to delete; people prefer to get their information in different ways. I edited the template to fit with this article as well. ninety:one 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]