# Talk:Richard Tomlinson

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)

I see the same guy (124.171.4.229) has deleted the link again. If he has evidence that the book is made available at the cryptome site without the consent of the copyright holders, he should take it up with cryptome, and (if he wants to make an issue of it here) post the evidence here. In fact he doesn't have such evidence, as the book is made available at cryptome with Tomlinson's consent; they made it available after his own website thebigbreach.com, (where he also had it available for free download) was taken down. I suspect the guy taking the link down has his own agenda. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but if he keeps taking the link down I suggest it should be treated as vandalism.217.42.13.36 22:16, 1 December 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".

Latest blog on blogger.com has been closed again on 8 March 2007.
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) 

If you can't handle comments on your idiotic gibberings, go back and hide in the little boys' room. And sign your contributions. You use four of these - ~. 116.28.1.191 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 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"?

"The Big Breach" says that Tomlinson could not join the Navy because of earlier asthma. The current text
is rather different.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.166.106 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"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) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Tomlinson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)


### Initial readthrough
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...

"He excelled at mathematics and physics" -- is the only source for this Tomlinson himself? That's probably worth mentioning in the text that this is his self-report.
Yes, but he must have excelled at them to get a scholarship to Cambridge.Farrtj (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
"MI6 claimed that he was sacked for "not being a team player, lacking motivation and having a short-term interest in the service", but admitted that he had experienced a "personality clash" with his senior line manager." -- "claimed" and "admitted" should be changed here per WP:WTA
"The decision angered Tomlinson who felt he had been treated unfairly by his spymasters who, he claimed, had failed to take into consideration his fraught personal circumstances and his previously strong record" -- rewrite claimed per WTA; also, the double "who..." makes this sentence perhaps more confusing than it needs to be. Perhaps split into two sentences?
Thanks for sorting this one out.Farrtj (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"Perhaps as a result of Tomlinson's campaign," -- does a secondary source for this exist? This appears to be a minor bit of WP:OR.
" now have the same employment rights " -- consider rewriting "now" as "as of [date]" per WP:REALTIME
" It is of note that MI6 have never succeeded in obtaining another PII certificate since the Tomlinson case, even though they have been subjected to more rigorous court scrutiny (for example the Inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales) than would have been involved with an employment tribunal." -- needs source; also, "it is of note" should probably be cut as a minor bit of editorializing.
More:

"Tomlinson fled to the Costa del Sol in Spain in early 1996" -- I'm confused as to why he's fleeing here. Is this a different event from the previous sentence that refers to his leaving the UK? Or a repetition of that event? Is his arrest eminent?
"to attempt to lure Tomlinson back on side," -- what does "on side" mean here? This seems a bit idiomatic and should probably be rewritten.
a  "school leaver's" -- I'm not familiar with this phrase (I'm American, which may have something to do with it)--what's the sense here?
<--- Sorted out all problems north of this sentence ---> Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"In October 1997 Tomlinson was arrested" -- had he returned to the UK, or was he arrested in Spain or Australia?
I don't know, and have been unable to find this information out.Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"He claimed that he " -- fix claimed per WTA
"Tomlinson can now travel freely " -- rewrite "now" as "as of [date]" per WP:REALTIME
"In October 1997 Tomlinson was arrested" -- this paragraph is largely uncited. As it deals with criminal charges against a living person (and includes quotations), everything will need to be carefully sourced here per [{WP:BLP]]. Please make this one your top priority in revisions.
"On completion of his three months probationary licence on 31 August 1998" -- can you verify that all the legal details in this paragraph appear in the source? I don't have a subscription, so can't access.
"Tomlinson was apprehended by French authorities..." -- this paragraph also needs sourcing per WP:BLP
" It was reported in some quarters..." -- what quarters were these? A source should be added, too.
"During 2008, Tomlinson was a witness for the inquest" -- this paragraph clearly needs a citation as a serious allegation
"At the Coroner's Inquest into the death of the Princess... " -- this paragraph needs a secondary source, rather than a direct transcript
"hounded out by officials under orders from MI6" -- seems to be moving into very non-neutral language; what's the original language of this source?
I found a copy of the source, which does say "hounded out" but does not mention orders of MI6.
"From 2006-7, Tomlinson maintained a series of blogs detailing his treatment" -- seems like a repetition of the previous sentence "During this period Tomlinson maintained several blogs publicising his treatment."
"police acting on the orders of MI6 in 2006" -- does the source say that the police were acting on MI6 orders? I read it quickly, and didn't appear to see that.
"MI6 also apologised for its unfair treatment of him." -- did MI6 specifically use the word "unfair"? What's the language of the source? Just want to make sure this isn't an editorial insertion.
The Sunday Times uses the phrase "unfair treatment", but it is not a direct quote from MI6. "As a result, MI6 has agreed to let him return to Britain, unfreeze royalties from his book and drop the threat of charges. It has also apologised for its unfair treatment of him."
"was expelled in June 1999 after the Swiss authorities described his presence there as "undesirable"" -- this doesn't seem to be an accurate summary of the source, which states, "in June 1999 he was forced to flee Geneva only hours before the Swiss authorities were to throw him out on allegations that he had violated a civil order not to publish the list." The source doesn't appear to use the word "undesirable" anywhere.
"His next posting was to work as an undercover agent against Iran, where he succeeded in penetrating the Iranian Intelligence Service." -- needs source
<--- All sorted above this line ---> Farrtj (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"after he became suicidally depressed" -- what source does the suicidally part come from, or the girlfriend dead of cancer? Neither of the linked articles appears to describe him as suicidal: " was a little bit depressed when I came back from Bosnia and I think those things combined to lead to my dismissal"; " He was sacked by MI6 in 1995 for poor service when he became depressed".
sorted.Farrtj (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"he decision angered Tomlinson who felt he had been treated unfairly by his spymasters who, he claimed, had failed to take into consideration his fraught personal circumstances" -- this sentence is copied word-for-word from [2].
"In 2009 MI6 agreed to allow Tomlinson to return to Britain, unfreeze royalties from his book and drop the threat of charges if he agreed to stop disclosing information about MI6 and speaking to the media.[6] MI6 also apologised for its unfair treatment of him" -- appears to be copied from the Sunday Times, when compared to an excerpt found elsewhere: "MI6 has agreed to let him return to Britain, unfreeze royalties from his book and drop the threat of charges. It has also apologised for its unfair treatment of him."
This source [3] does not appear to have any mention of Cumbria or Australia, which is what it's cited for.
That must be because you don't have access to the full article. As the whole article is not available freely online, a link to a subscription service is better than none. It does in fact mention that his parents live in Carlisle. Farrtj (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I do have access to that one, actually, but was weak enough on the geography that I was just CTRLF-ing Cumbria. I still don't see any mention of brother/sibling/Australia--am I making a similar mistake here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The evidence for this is Tomlinson himself, but I can only find it mirrored on untrustworthy sites. It's hardly contentious information, but remove? Farrtj (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Nah, don't worry about removing, but I'd say move the footnote to after the parent sentence instead of after the Australia sentence. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake--I was misremembering that as two sentences. It's fine the way it is. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
" offering him a £15,000 loan and a "school leaver's" marketing job with Jackie Stewart's Formula One racing team, in return for a promise of silence." -- needlessly identical to the words of the source: "Temple helped negotiate a £15,000 loan and a job with the Jackie Stewart racing team, in return for a promise of silence."[4]
"The Sun newspaper called Tomlinson a "traitor", and published his email address, urging readers to contact him" -- needlessly uses the language of the source: " the Sun newspaper published his e-mail address, calling him a traitor and urging readers to contact him."


### Closing review
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: 

a few sentences cut and pasted word-for-word from sources (above)
Sources that don't contain the information attributed to them, particularly accusations about MI6's "orders" to other European countries
Unsourced information about criminal charges against a living person
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. 

They come from the subscription-only service, Lexis Nexis. A lot of these sources come from the late 1990s, before news organisations put all of their articles up on line as a matter of course. Having said that, I managed to find #23 online in a matter of seconds. Farrtj (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, #23 came right up for me in Google, too. Not sure if that's a typo on my part or what. Apologies for the mistake. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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)

Just wanted to add more generally here, thanks for taking care of the points above--your work is much appreciated! I'll keep half an eye on this page to see if there's any way I can pitch in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. One of the more constructive ones I've had, which on the whole have tended to be spiteful and nit picky. I feel that I've addressed all of the issues now, and will reapply for GA status in a couple of weeks time.Farrtj (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! And I'd say no need to wait a few weeks if you think it's ready to go, though of course it's up to you. I'll look forward to seeing this as a GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 15 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 others203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now sourced this information to The Guardian. The source reads: 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. Farrtj (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

The term is used in MI6.Farrtj (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Tomlinson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)


### Review discussion
I noticed that the article has no images.  Would adding one be do-able?  I know these can be tough which is why I asked.  North8000 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Still-open item.  If it is not feasible to get an image then it would still meet that criteria, but we're need to discuss/find that out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
There are no photos available that we can use.Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you clarify the sentence : "MI6 have not succeeded in obtaining another PII certificate since the Tomlinson case, even though they have at times been subjected to more rigorous court scrutiny (for example the Inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales) than would have been involved with an employment tribunal."     I really can't understand the "even though" linkage.North8000 (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed for clarity.Farrtj (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Cool.  Resolved. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The Leigh, David reference link seems to go to the wrong place (an unrelated article). I found that when checking a statement of motive for making an offer to him; to save a step you might make sure that the source supports that.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not written by David Leigh but it's otherwise correct. Changed accordingly.Farrtj (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you clarify what "sat examinations" means in "Following his graduation he sat examinations".  I'm afraid  we can't understand that one on this side of the pond.  I'm assuming that it means passed or took the examinations?  North8000 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It means took his examinations. I've now changed it to "took" so that it will be more widely understood. I wasn't aware that this was a British-ism.Farrtj (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Cool.  Resolved. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a conflict in the wording, and when checking to try to resolve it, I found that it appears that neither is sourced.   The lead said that access to employment tribunals started in 2000, then body said it started in 2013.   I did a quick check of the sources. The 2000 sources appears to (only) discuss a different type of tribunal (unrelated to employment) and the source for the 2013 figures appears to not even mention this.  Could you clarify / fix?   North8000 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this is resolved. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


### GA criteria final checklist
Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria due to the "if possible" criteria.  Has no images, appears that it is not possible to do so. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


### Result
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)

I have questions about your book, The Big Breach. First, what were you really doing in Africa "before" joining SIS? Second, why did you "flee" to France and expect to not be within their reach? France, of all places.--Zubedar (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)