Talk:77th Brigade (United Kingdom)

Suggest merger with Security Assistance Group
It is the Security Assistance GroupPhd8511 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article makes it clear
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/537c7436-a892-11e4-ad01-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QOKufW5C

That the SAG is the 77th Brigade.

I bloody give up
You dont understand that it is NOT FREAKING PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!Phd8511 (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Warmly thanks to Phd8511 (talk) for starting a comment on this article talk page. Please let's all try to chill out taking a deep breath... and, if possible, to avoid MOS:ALLCAPS. Thanks.   M  aurice    11:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 77th Brigade (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141227151440/https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/military-stabilisation-support-group to https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/military-stabilisation-support-group

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Brigades functions as described by BBC and the Herald
The following paragraph has been removed three times recently (possibly by the same user). I don't see a problem with including it as it is well sourced, information from the Brigade itself is described as is and opinion is attributed. What do other users think of this.

"The Brigade uses social media such as Twitter and Facebook as well as psyop techniques to influence populations and change behaviour. David Miller said that it is "is involved in manipulation of the media including using fake online profiles". ". Burrobert (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now re-added this paragraph. The relevant quote from the BBC article is:


 * "The brigade will be made up of warriors who don't just carry weapons, but who are also skilled in using social media such as
 * Twitter and Facebook, and the dark arts of "psyops" - psychological operations.
 * They will try to influence local populations and change behaviour through what the Army calls traditional and unconventional
 * means".


 * David Miller's quote comes from The Herald article. Burrobert (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Covid-19
During the UK governments daily coronavirus briefing, 22 April, Nick Carter confirmed that 77th Brigade are working with the Home Office Rapid Response Unit "helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but also to counter disinformation”. There seems to be a lack of reporting of his pertinent comments...... however, I've managed to find a couple of sources, along with a YouTube video of the briefing. I understand that YouTube is not generally a reliable source, but this is uploaded directly to the official ITV  channel, so I assume that's acceptable.  I've noted the sources below for comment prior to making any edits to include the info.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6Q21xNDkNs

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/22/armed-forces-chief-coronavirus-greatest-logistic-challenge-in-40-years-service/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18398012.defence-chief-says-77th-brigade-countering-covid-misinformation/

--DeltaSnowQueen (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not much detail in the two articles about the specifics of what the brigade is doing in this context. A general statement based on Nick Carter's remarks would be useful in the Activities section. Both article sources seem fine and I don't think you would need to attribute a general statement to either of the sources. I haven't watched the youTube video. If it is on the ITV site this would indicate copyright isn't a problem. Policy says "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted". Burrobert (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Carter didn't give much detail other than confirming their involvement, so I've quoted what he said anyway. They're probably trolling anyone on Twitter who doesn't agree that the government are doing a sterling job, but that's just my take so it's not relevant  Smile.png.  Thanks again for your help with that, it's appreciated.  --DeltaSnowQueen (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
David Miller has a track record of saying things that are ... not neutral. He got kicked out of the Labour party for pretending that Keir Starmer was funded by a Zionist conspiracy. (Apparently, the previous claim that MI5 collaborates with Jews to wage a propaganda war against Corbyn was not on its own enough to get him suspended; it's quite a high bar). Three of his four most recent tweets pretend that Bellingcat are part of an evil conspiracy with the OPCW (the other one merely pretends that OPCW are deliberately hiding benign causes of death for people who were, in reality, killed by the Syrian government's chemical weapons). We should never regard Miller as a reliable source on the media or the military. The 77th Brigade is actually pretty dull; please don't try to spice up this article by citing conspiracy theorists, Assadists, or antisemites. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remove your description of Miller. It is a breach of BLP policy. Burrobert (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As an academic he is a  very  reliable source. While we live in a world where there exists a political binary with all the above examples (ie. Miller "pretending" Starmer is Zionist-funded whereas he actually EXPOSED Starmer to be a Zionist stooge; Corbyn being anti-Semitic etc, Syrian government killing people using "chemical weapons" when it did not do so and those killed had been so at the hands of the western-sponsored Jihadists etc.) are lifted straight out of the CIA playbook, so naturally there will be a lot of whimpering over Miller's work from those quarters, but that's the way conflict works. Those baseless opinions are cherished among western regimes and their obeisant mainstream media and other apologists sympathizing for those standpoints, but their claims do not extend outside of their own champagne bubble, and none of this means that one who stands against the Neo-Cons is automatically "not reliable" just because he is a victim of their purge. --Rice not spice (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

David Miller
The following text was recently removed from the article twice: "David Miller said that it is 'involved in manipulation of the media including using fake online profiles'." I believe should remain as it is properly sourced in a reliable source to an expert in the relevant field. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of this comment. He trained in media studies degree and was, until his dismissal, a sociologist, so not a subject matter expert. How does he know about the fake online profiles? It's just his speculation. If the National thought he was worth quoting in 2020, I don't think many reliable sources would see him as worth citing now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

More about CPPU
here

https://www.army.mod.uk/media/6862/bar_special_culture_conflict_web.pdf

BlueD954 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Colin Mackie's blog
Re this edit, am happy to defer to the more knowledgable, but I'm not sure that an MBE confers RS status. His blog is an SPS, so we need to be absolutely certain he's an SME to cite him here. Isn't there a better source for this factual claim? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi - There may well be other sources but that is not the point. Mackie has been awarded the British Empire Medal (not an MBE) for services to heritage and public history: that is a far superior recognition of scholarship than most historians are ever likely to achieve in a lifetime. To suggest that his work is "unreliable" without scholarly evidence of such is completely unacceptable and probably deserves an apology. Dormskirk (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi - I have added two extra sources because, in general, I agree that multiple sources are better than one. Dormskirk (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I unreservedly apologise to Mr Mackie; I am absolutely not criticising him personally, and am more than happy to be persuaded his website deserves RS status. If I said he is unreliable, I withdraw that; but I have not yet seen evidence his website should be considered generally reliable. Is his website cited by other scholars or by other reliable sources, for instance? I also apologise for misnaming his honour, but I am not convinced that this honour relates to his website's reliability as Wikipedia understands it, even if he has been of great public service, a different quality.
 * Thank you for adding other sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi - Many thanks for your careful and thoughtful response. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

fixed link
nt Nonsenseses (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)