Talk:Brian Nelson (Northern Irish loyalist)

Move

I just want to point out that one source calling him a double agent doesn't make it a neutral article title. BigDunc^Talk 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Brian Nelson. The disambiguation page may now be found at Brian Nelson (disambiguation) -- Aervanath (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

---

From User talk:BigDunc Brian Nelson (Double agent) I should be grateful if you would self revert you moving of the above article. I started the article under the name as above. Therefore you rationale that the move was not discussed cannot hold. I am quite happy to discuss any moves but I am not motivated to continue editing under a title that does not adequately describe his notability. This is not as simple as John Gregg (UDA) - Nelson was a British Agent first, if not foremost. When I have done my bit, do what you want. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Double agent is an ambiguous term, I am open for discussion about an alternate title on the article talk page. BigDunc^Talk 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. Briish Army Agent? Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Using "double agent" as a disambiguator is not neutral in my opinion, and it is a frequently misused term in addition. I might be convinced by a move to an appropriate alternate title though, if one were suggested. O Fenian (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with British Army Agent. How about you? Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The end of my sentence was "if one were suggested". As that had already been suggested, my sentence says it is not acceptable to me. O Fenian (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you not accept that either term is more accurate than UDA? Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No. To even suggest so shows a lack of understanding of Brian Nelson. He was provided information by the FRU in order that certain people could be targeted, in effect to make the UDA focus their killings on people the FRU believed it would be more beneficial to have killed than random innocent Catholics. He saved lives, well according to the people that were trying to cover up their activities and prevent them coming out in open court. It is claimed he saved the life of Gerry Adams, when in reality his FRU handlers were not willing to allow an assassination attempt on Adams to go ahead as it would have been potentially disastrous as Adams was taking the Republican Movement down a political path and his assassination changed that. Contrast that with the killing of Francisco Notarantonio, who the FRU were quite happy to have targeted (they supplied his details after all!) instead of Freddie Scappatici. The FRU's concern was not with saving lives, but only ones it was politically expedient to. O Fenian (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing what you opinions on Nelson; But he was not a UDA member that was turned; He was a man brought in by Military Intelligence/FRU to infiltrate the UDA. Being willing to take lives does not preclude him from being an agent of the State. Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Afraid that is not true. He started working for military intelligence after he was a UDA member, or are you suggesting he was working for military intelligence when he was arrested with an injured Catholic man in the boot of his car, an offence he was imprisoned for but which is for some reason absent from the article? "Stakeknife" by Martin Ingram says "Brian Nelson ws recruited not in 1987, as has been widely reported, but in 1979, after his release from prison (that is, if he wasn't already an agent in 1974 when he set out to kill Gerry Higgins)". "Loyalists" by Peter Taylor says "In 1974 he was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to seven years. On his release, he rejoined the UDA and volunteered his services to military intelligence, saying he was sick of the killing. The military, who probably could not believe their luck, enrolled him as an agent in the army's Force Research Unit (FRU)". I am sure there are others that confirm the 1979 date too, if you really want them? O Fenian (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason that snippet is not included is that you have, for some reason, chosen not to include it (Why not?). I have already stated that I have no inclination to edit the article further under the current name. I have a wealth more of information that I had intended to add. Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, the reason it isn't in the article is because you have omitted it. Are you suggesting him being imprisoned for a sectarian offence is not in the sources you have used? O Fenian (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This source] mentions it but it also says ...he was pursued by British intelligence to Regensberg and persuaded or pressed into returning to Belfast in 1987 to resume his work as an agent of British Military intelligence Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Does no other source you have used mention it? Also it is documented that in the mid-1980s Nelson ceased working for military intelligence while he was in Europe, although there are some details of him observing the Irish community in Germany, so him resuming activity in Northern Ireland in 1987 does not prove he was working for them prior to joining the UDA in 1972. O Fenian (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Remember that the point of the bracketed disambiguator is to disambiguate the subject form other Brian Nelsons, in this case, only Brian Nelson (screenwriter). Check WP:QUALIFIER for some guidance: "Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised ... and also try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand." For these purposes, Brian Nelson (double agent) is a more suitable title so, support. — AjaxSmack 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs to be neutral and unambiguous, which "double agent" is not in the case of Brian Nelson. The term is frequently misused, and whether it even applies to this person is highly questionable. O Fenian (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian Nelson (double agent) is highly questionable, is neither neutral or unambiguous. Brian Nelson (UDA) covers all ofUser talk:AjaxSmack's WP:QUALIFIER. How could he be described as a "double agent," that would suggest he was working as an agent of the UDA inside the British military? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He was wasn't he? Lucian Sunday (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Describing him simply as (UDA) is insufficient as his notoriety is different from that of Adair, Gregg, the Shoukris. Tyrie, Smallwoods etc.

Sinn Fein describe him variously as UDA/British Army double agent, British Army double agent or purely British double agent Irish News likewise British army double agent

Pat Finucane centre as Force Research Unit double agent

Republican site The Blanket as UDA double agent

Guardian as agent or informer

The (British) Independent as military intelligence agent

The BBC as army double agent

Irish Tribune as loyalist double agent

The Times and Daily Mail as "double agent"

We have a wide variety of sources above from every possible POV from the Blanket and Sinn Fein to the Daily Mail describing him as a double agent. What matters here is the description used in WP:RS not the personal prejudices of individual editors. Valenciano (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing two issues. One is whether this page should be moved, and if it should be moved what page it should be moved to. Those against moving it to "double agent" are not against moving the page entirely, only against moving it to a title which is ambiguous and misleading and not neutral.

Why is it misleading? Perhaps because Nelson's activities were not those of a double agent? His activities as a UDA member were carried out on the instructions and under the direction of his handlers in the FRU, therefore how can he possibly have been acting against them? You speak of prejudice, yet you are only here as you frequently stalk Domer48 and disagree with him for the sake of it.

So as there is significant opposition to "double agent", would someone actually like to suggest a neutral, unambiguous non-misleading title? O Fenian (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The usual failure to WP:AGF I see O_F. You speak of "misleading" and "neutral" yet you fail to produce a single source to support your opinions which is all that they are - you have not explained why the viewpoint of Sinn Fein, An Phoblacht, Pat Finucane Centre or The Blanket balanced by the Daily Mail can possibly be construed as one sided, preferring instead to indulge in snide personal attacks. WP is not here to cater for the prejudices of you or anyone else. By the way I was editing WP and had troubles related pages watchlisted long before you came on the scene, so don't flatter yourself.

However, if you can come up with a title which takes care of the "double agent" description mentioned in the sources, which is what Nelson is primarily known for, then I'm all ears. Valenciano (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. You call me and other editors prejudiced, then when you get called out on your actions you claim other people don't AGF. How else did you end up here if you aren't stalking Domer48 like you always do? O Fenian (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, O_F, the really funny/hypocritical thing is that you accuse me of stalking yet of the last five articles that Domer has edited I've only edited two. The other one was the free derry one where I followed the IP vandal from the Derry page and added refs while you were busy pissing around as usual in revert wars and personal attacks. In contrast you've edited all five (!) in some cases within a few minutes. If I could be arsed to check further I'm sure I'd find similar "coincedences" in your editing patterns with you turning up on virtually every article he edits. So if it's stalking you're worried about, I suggest you've a long hard look in the mirror before you embarrass yourself further. You've already been warned recently about civility. By the way I missed the bit where you suggested an alternative name for this article - care to make a productive contribution for a change? Valenciano (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So you believe others should assume good faith, while you are free to question the motives of others and abuse them at will? I was right first time, and every time. O Fenian (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the one as usual who started the personal attacks O_F accusing others of things that you are, if anything, more guilty of - laughably even accusing me of stalking an editor that you appear to be joined at the hip to.

You were asked to come up with alternative article name. Response:nothing except a personal attack.

You were asked above for sources to support your argument that describing Nelson as a double agent "is highly questionable." Response: nothing except a personal attack. If my natural assumption from that (i.e. that you don't have any sources) bothers you, then produce them.

If you engage in FUD tactics instead of providing sources to back up your dubious and unsourced opinions then yes, your motives will be questioned. Now as you've obviously nothing constructive to add rather than a pissing contest, I'll leave you to it. Valenciano (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Brian Nelson (operative) or Brian Nelson (Northern Ireland)? Just possibilities. Station1 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would support the second as a compromise. Valenciano (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian has provided a number of sources to support productive contribution for an alternative name. Nelson's activities were not those of a double agent. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Domer, fair enough, the "double agent"/"agent"/"informer" issue can be dealt with in the article itself. How about the Brian Nelson (Northern Ireland) suggestion above as a compromise? Valenciano (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Check WP:QUALIFIER for some guidance, the Brian Nelson (Northern Ireland) suggestion as a compromise would not do IMO. Brian Nelson (UDA) addresses WP:QUALIFIER as a best fit, unlike the above suggestions. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Without prejudice to my strong belief that Nelson was more notable for being a double agent than being a UDA [sic]. WP:QUALIFIER advises It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). UDA is an affiliation. We do not have Brian Keenan (IRA) but Brian Keenan (Irish republican). PS I cannot see any sources provided by O Fenian let alone sources that a support productive contribution. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:QUALIFIER also advises "this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used...also try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand."--Domer48_'fenian' 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

UDA is not a single word it is an acronym. Granted UDA it is recognisable to me but is it recognisable outside of Britain and Ireland? - Double agent is recognisable by all English speakers. I can only reiterate that UDA is not applicable to Nelson whose notablity, unlike somes from his UDA counterparts was an agent of British Military intelligence (Ref)] Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn' think that WP:QUALIFIER was that unclear. "Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised ..." UDA is an abbreviation and it's capitalised. "...Try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand." UDA is not a word and is not immediately recognisable to someone outside of Ireland or the UK. UDA is also not highly applicable since Nelson's notability (as noted above) does not derive primarily from his being in the UDA per se.

When deciding the disambiguator try to focus on the main purpose: to disambiguate the this Brian Nelson from Brian Nelson (screenwriter). "Double agent," although two words, seems to be the most succinct, widely-understood, and applicable term to describe this Brian Nelson as noted in User:Valenciano's citations above. "Agent," "operative," or "Northern Ireland" are too vague but "informer" might work. — AjaxSmack 01:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:QUALIFIER is not that unclear, it says "Try to avoid abbreviations or anything capitalised... Try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand." Anyone looking for Brian Nelson the one who was in the UDA and not a screenwriter would make it immediately recognisable to anyone. UDA is also highly applicable since Nelson's notability does derive primarily from his being in the UDA per se. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If people insist that double agent is an acceptable qualifier, I will collate information from reliable sources that show exactly why it is wholly misleading? O Fenian (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All information from reliable sources greatfully received Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A traditional double agent would be someone like George Blake, who while supposedly spying for Britain was actually spying for Russia. So on seeing the double agent term applied to this article title, someone would think that while supposedly informing the British military about UDA activities, Nelson was actually pursuing his own pro-UDA agenda without the knowledge of the British military, you would agree?

Nelson's role as a FRU agent had two distinct phases.

Phase 1:

From "Stakeknife" by Martin Ingram pages 179-180. "We should point out that during this two-year period, Nelson's information was used by the FRU in a different way from the manner in which it was handled during the period from 1987 to 1990. Between 1983 and 1985 many UDA/UFF terror operations were stopped or compromised by various means. The facts speak for themselves: during the last six months of 1983 the UDA in Belfast did not kill any nationalists or Catholics. It is our understanding that at that time Nelson's information was used to prevent a number of murder attempts (a very different modus operandi from the implemented by the regime he was to work for in the late 1980s). It wasn't that Nelson wasn't itching to kill, but rather than his handlers at the time used his information to save lives rather than to take them". So he was fulfilling the traditionally understood role of an agent inside any paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland, his information was being used to prevent attacks.

Phase 2:

From "Stakeknife" by Martin Ingram page 181. "Brady was the only victim of Brian Nelson's intelligence-gathering activities between 1983 and 1985. It is claimed by FRU officers that Nelson was kept under close scrutiny throughout these years and that his information was used to save dozens of lives. The same could not be said of Nelson's next period as a FRU informant, when he returned to Northern Ireland from Regensburg, Bavaria, just before Christmas 1986. Over the following three years he would not only be allowed to kill but actively encouraged to kill. The game had changed. Nelson was now ysed for what one senior FRU officer called 'proper targeting', and his victims were largely innocent Catholics."

From "Loyalists" by Peter Taylor page 207. "In 'Colonel J's' [who gave evidence for Nelson's defence as his trial] words, Nelson was recruited to 'persuade the UDA to centralize their targeting through Nelson and to concentrate [it] on known Provisional IRA activists.'...A contact form [a form filled in by the FRU after meeting with agents] dated 3 May 1988 states '6137 [Nelson's agent number] wants the UDA only to attack legitimate targets and not innocent Catholics. Since 6137 took up his role as intelligence officer, the targeting has developed and is now more professional'."

From "Stakeknife" by Martin Ingram page 183. "The FRU's role in handling Nelson was ostensibly to ensure 'proper targeting', instead of the UDA simply murdering random Catholics. In fact, as this list will demonstrate, Nelson continued to provide UDA gunmen with the names of Catholics who had no connection with the IRA or any other republican organisation. It is clear that while the FRU provided Nelson with material such as photographs and addresses and other confidential intelligence details to facilitate his targeting of IRA and Sinn Fein members, Brian Nelson used the same operational methods to invent files on ordinary members of the Catholic community to give bogus justification for shooting them. On one occasion he even produced a victim whom he assumed was a Catholic, but turned out to be a Protestant. According to Sir John Stevens in April and November 2003, it seems the FRU did nothing to prevent the murders of such individuals. Furthermore, even though the FRU would have known that UDA 'teams' had gone out to kill a random Catholic, they did nothing either to stop the murder taking place or to arrest the gunmen."

So while Nelson was to a certain extent pursuing his own agenda by targeting innocent Catholics (which the FRU were aware of), he was also pursuing the FRU's agenda by targeting known republican activists and providing information to the FRU. That would make him a double agent to an extent, BUT to name the article using the term would be misleading. It implies that he continued providing information to the FRU, while going against their wishes by killing people. His whole reason for notability is the collusion aspect, in other words that the FRU assisted him and the UDA in the targeting of republican activists, and in that aspect of his "work" he was not a double agent, he was obeying orders. I will even track down his comments to his handlers when he was told he was going to be arrested, he was incredulous that he was going to be arrested when he worked for the FRU and did what they told him to do. O Fenian (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting but I'm not sure how relevant. All that needs to happen with a disambiguator in the case is for it to establish that he was not a screenwriter and to give some guidance as to what he was. Since UDA does not immediately generate recognition to a worldwide readership (it could refer to a Zambian politician), "double agent" is a decent choice. It doesn't really matter if he didn't meet 100% of the textbook definition of a double agent as long as he would be generally recognisable as such. User:Valenciano seems to have established above that this is the case. — AjaxSmack 06:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

People asked why it was misleading, that explains in detail from reliable sources why it is misleading. O Fenian (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

As any possible qualifier seems to be controversial, misleading or ambiguous, and WP:MOSDAB suggests that disambiguation pages with two entries (it used to have four) are to be avoided, why can't this article be at Brian Nelson with a hatnote to Brian Nelson (screenwriter)? O Fenian (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Brian Nelson (screenwriter), whose notabilty is worthy of praise, this would have been my starting preferred option but I knew neither the channels to follow nor mechanics to achieve it. He was Brian Nelson (screenwriter) before and will be Brian Nelson (screenwriter) afterwards so why not? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise O Fenain I would agree to that. BigDunc^Talk 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that. Valenciano (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

a logical compromise O Fenain. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it but someone might want to resubmit to WP:RM since it involves an issue not presented in the original nomination (i.e., the relative notability of the two Brian Nelsons). — AjaxSmack 05:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. There seems to be consensus here now to use Brian Nelson so no need to reopen a can of worms. If someone else should come along later with an objection, deal with it then. In the meantime, this seems like an excellent solution. Station1 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is among those concerned about the double agent. There might be fans of the screenwriter or others who might want to weigh in. The "cans of worms" are normal procedure at Wikipedia but I'll go along either way. — AjaxSmack 06:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Name: secret, double, whatever

Call it whatever you want, but we now have 3 people/articles named Brian Nelson, and likely more in the future. This articles name dispute should not be solved by breaking the WP:MOSDAB guidelines. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarify, the above name change consensus was made based on the assumption that there were only 2 Brian Nelson's on Wikipedia - that is no longer the case, now there are three, so the assumption is no longer valid, it breaks WP:MOSDAB. Further, a "Brian Nelson (disambiguation)" would only be used in cases where there is a famous figure, like George Washington (disambiguation) - but that is not the case here, there is no reason for the double agent Brian Nelson to be given preferential treatment, he is no more or less well known than any of the other Brian Nelson's. The issue here clearly is the inability to arrive at name for this article, but don't break WP:MOSDAB as a way to resolve the dispute. It was a bad idea to begin with because there will be more Brian Nelson's added to Wikipedia in the future. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the dab page, you shouldn't just cut/paste it to Brian Nelson. I would suggest you request it be moved via WP:RM. Tassedethe (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an even worse idea for this page to be unilaterally moved to an undiscussed name. The current name, to put it politely, is fucking stupid. O Fenian (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

100% agree with above comments by O Fenian. BigDunc^Talk 12:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want. Call it Brian Nelson (military). Call it Brian Nelson (1948-2003). Call it Brian Nelson (UDA/British). What is "fucking stupid", O Fenian, is the notion that no other option exists other than to break the MOSDAB rules and to give this person special preference over all the other people named Brian Nelson on Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus to keep the page at Brian Nelson (1948-2003) I will move Brian Nelson (disambiguation) to Brian Nelson, but please stop with the cut/paste moves. Tassedethe (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the article name space to the base name, per the above move request. If an editor would like to have the article moved to a new name, please follow the steps listed at WP:RM. Note that there is nothing contrary to the disambiguation guidelines in the current arrangement. One article at the base name and a dab page at "base name (disambiguation)" is the usual arrangement for ambiguous phrase with a primary topic. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Firstname Lastname" is not a phrase but a name, names are handled differently. Only when one person is very famous would it have a separate (disambiguation) page, like with George Washington (disambiguation) - normally it is handled like with David Thompson, the proper name is the dab page. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not handled differently. Primary topic applies to people and not-people. The Wikipedia move guidelines apply as well; if you'd like to have the article moved from the name chosen by the last move request, you should make a new move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New move request

The discussion page for the WP:RM request is at Talk:Brian Nelson (disambiguation). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Brian Nelson

Moved from User talk:CyrilThePig4 You said:

"Consensus, albeit with the option for this very RM, was achieved at Talk:Brian Nelson#Requested move."

Yes, but this consensus is outdated, it was predicated on the fact there were only two BN's on Wikipedia. All well and good. But then things changed, a month later a third BN showed up and the issue of a primary topic became important - which of the three is primary? So the previous consensus was no longer valid because the situation had changed with the addition of a third BN (Brian Nelson (critic)).

"but now on a page that may well not be on the watchlist of the majority of contributors to that tortuous RM. So eventually a new disambiguator is achieved such as, for instance, Brian Nelson (agent) - once it is imposed on Brian Nelson will not those contributors cry foul? Green Cardamom, I believe you came to this page because you could not change Consensus at Talk:Brian Nelson."

This is inaccurate for two reasons:

1. Per the RM procedures, the page being renamed is where the discussion takes place. I chose to rename Brian Nelson (disambiguation) -> Brian Nelson because I wanted to see an appropriate disambiguation page for all three Brian Nelson's - I could care less what the "agents" page is called. So the discussion was on Talk:Brian Nelson (disambiguation), per the RM procedures.
2. I agree with you that people who took part in the original discussion would not see it, which is why I took the courtesy of informing people of the name change on the "agent" Brian Nelson's talk page: Take a look. Did you miss it? Others seem to have seen it.

Finally, you are free to WP:RM the agent Brian Nelson's page if you want, call the page whatever you want, if you can get consensus for it - you just can't claim primary topic status, that's all. Or if you really want primary topic status, than make a case for it and RM that. But the notion that there is no disambig term that is neutral, and therefore the agent must be a primary topic, well, that doesn't make any sense, as the most recent RM confirmed, by a number of admins. You could try that strategy but I think it would be a waste of a lot of peoples time. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Death circumstances?

Reports vary. Any more light on where and how he died? 86.140.5.29 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Page has been moved

I have moved the page to enable readers to identify the subject. Giving his dates after his name in the title was insufficient as well as discouraged per WP. Nelson was an intelligence agent so I see no reason why there should be objections to my BOLD move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How is the move controversial? His article's opening sentence describes him as having been an agent for British intelligence? The dates are not a sufficient means by which to identify the subject.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you had looked at this page, you would have known the move was extremely controversial. Disambiguators are not for identifying the subject, they are for disambiguating one page from another. There was lengthy discussion above which you ignored before making an extremely controversial move. O Fenian (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We are encouraged to be bold and seeing as the discussions were held two years ago, I decided (impulsively I'll admit) to mmove the page. I did it to improve the project, not piss people off, so seeing as I have ruffled a few feathers, let's keep it at Brian Nelson (1948-2008).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Nelson (Northern Irish loyalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119015348/http://www.sinnfein.ie/pdf/Collusion_BrianNelson.pdf to http://www.sinnfein.ie/pdf/Collusion_BrianNelson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

References & factual accuracy.

This is a disputed topic and this article relies on references obtained from non-neutral parties and only from the Republican side.

1. Reference 1: Pat Finucane Center, a biased source.
2. Reference 4: Sinn Fein, a biased source.
3. Reference 11: Ken Livingstone, what is his expertise in this matter?
4. Reference 16: A website/blog called 'themilitant'.

The links for many references are dead preventing them from being fact-checked. This is important.

For example, the passage in 'Further allegations' states:

• In January 1993, Gerry Adams claimed the British government was fully aware of Nelson's involvement in Ulster Resistance's January 1988 importation of weapons[10] from South Africa[11] including 200 AK47 rifles; 90 Browning pistols; 500 fragmentation grenades and 12 RPG 7 rocket launchers. A different branch of the security forces was able to intercept a large part of the weapons before the Loyalists were able to use them.[12][13][14] The weapons which did get through, together with the reliance by loyalists on leaked, although often outdated, military and police intelligence files on potential targets, meant that by 1992 loyalists were killing more than the republicans, a situation not seen since 1975.[10]

It is true that Gerry Adams claimed that Brian Nelson was involved in the importation of weapons from South Africa. However Ulster Resistance did not get any weapons from South Africa in 1987/1988, or at any time before or after. The weapons haul came from Lebanon. Peter Taylor states in 'Loyalists' that Brian Nelson was not involved with this shipment. In addition the rifles were not AK47s they were vz.58s. These details are correctly captured in the Ulster Resistance Wikipedia article.

Ulster Resistance did attempt to import South African weapons in exchange for missile technology but this was foiled by British intelligence. Noel Little was arrested in Paris while attempting to broker the deal. Once more these details are correctly captured in the Ulster Resistance Wikipedia article but not here.

Finally, that 'different branch of security forces' that was 'able to intercept the weapons' was the RUC. The RUC have been accused of helping Loyalists elsewhere on Wikipedia, but has not been credited with curtailing Loyalist arms in this article, perhaps deliberately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.243.20 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)