Talk:Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre

This front-page article in the Guardian today contradicts the article by saying:

Untitled

Under the Jtac system "moderate" is the lowest threat level and "severe specific", which assumes an attack is imminent, the highest.

The MI5 website doesn't give information about the levels. Can anyone find a reliable source? LukeSurl 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the BIKINI state levels are not the same as these, the articles themselves contradict. One is for threat, the other for alert. It is difficult to establish the facts, as this article has clearly been used as the source for several websites.LukeSurl 16:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The stated alert levels are 100% correct as can be seen onpage 18 of the Intelligence and Security committee report in the 7/7 bombing.

link title

I've clarified the article, using the information from MI5. Is this clearer? The Guardian article came before the threat levels were changed a couple of weeks ago. The One00 14:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Proper names"

I have not reverted the changes made by ALR, and do not want to start an edit war, but why change from MI5 and MI6 to SS and SIS? I can understand the case with the SIS, but the MI5 article is actually at MI5, the website is mi5.co.uk, and it is not commonly known as the Security Service. Unless this is explained to me, I will revert back. --anskas

The proper name of the Security Service is Security Service, the MI5 designator used by the general public is archaic and inaccurate, although it does have popular usage. Merely because it has popular usage does not mean that WP needs to use that in the body of an article. I can't say I agree with the usage for the BSS article in WP, but it has already been discussed and the usual WP flaw of ill informed majority holds sway. I'd acknowledge the argument that someone is more likely to search for MI5, however I believe that it's a specious argument given that MI5 could reasonably redirect to BSS. The website does itself recognise that MI5 is an inaccurate designation (it used to I haven't looked today).

Popular usage does not mean that WP has to dumb down any more than is implicit in the model.ALR 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how I feel about this. For the time being, I think the page looks good as it stands, and neither of us should make changes without further discussion. Yes? --anskas 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The page needs quite a lot of work, so I'm unprepared to commit to not changing anything at present. I'm intending on doing some work on it on Saturday, to tidy it up and make some issues clearer. At present it's confused and focuses on trivia about JTAC assessments rather than JTAC itself. With respect to terminology, I tend towards getting it right, rather than popular.ALR 23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The page does need work, and I am willing to help. I was only refering to not changing the terminology. --anskas 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting in a section about organisation so I'd think that the best approach would be to use proper names and then bracket the colloquial usage afterwards at the first appearance. Similar issues apply to Scotland Yard, what is meant is Met Police Special Branch. The snag with that is a separation, the first appearance of BSS would be in the first sentence; Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre is an all source intelligence organisation within the British Security Service (commonly and incorrectly termed MI5).... whereas the first appearance of SIS and MOD DIS would be in an organisaitonal section. as long as it's written reasonably then that shouldn't be a problem, but I am conscious thatsomeone is bound to want to correct it.ALR 11:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being provocative by suggesting "...and incorrectly termed..."? Let`s just try and improve the article without confilcts. --anskas 22:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing provocative about it, the terminology is incorrect. Look at the services own website, the MI5 designation ceased official usage prior to WWII.ALR 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence Agency

I'm uncomfortable with wikilinking intelligence organisation in the text to intelligence agency in WP, in part because JTAC is not an agency so it's not really a representative description. JTAC has an odd relationship with BSS, inasmuch as it falls within it for RIPA, FOIA, DPA compliance and it's funded from the single intelligence budget via BSS. To create JTAC as an agency in its own right would require primary legislation, it would also ramp the costs up as it has benificial use of BSS admin resource which would need to be replicated. Motwithstanding that I'll leave the link in until I've had a chance to think about a meaningful explanation using citable sources.ALR 18:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name is wrong!

Title says "terrorist" and article says "terrorism". The latter is correct, but this is a bit of a cock-up isn't it? Can someone correct - including the dismabig page? -- 62.25.106.209 10:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. 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/20091228091230/http://homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/current-threat-level/index.html to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/current-threat-level/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090918184334/http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/joint-terrorism-analysis-centre.html to https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/joint-terrorism-analysis-centre.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)