Talk:Confidential Intelligence Unit

Accuracy

 * 1) This article is based off one tabloid article.
 * 2) The source used for the article is of questionable factual accuracy.
 * 3) The article is from the Daily Mail.

Unless the "unit" is reported (first hand) in other outlets I can't see much of a future for this article. ninety:one 01:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no doubt, you will be over the moon that a second source has been added. Perhaps you would care to remove the disputed tag?Harrypotter (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need for the uncivil attitude. Thank you for providing the second source. Whilst it concurs with the MoS in that the unit exists, it does not corroborate the claims made about it's role, so that remains disputed. However, I really don't think that this article needs to exist as a stand-alone article from National Public Order Intelligence Unit, so I propose merging the two. ninety:one 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you mistook my light-hearted quip as being uncivil. I think it might well be a good idea to merge the articles. In fact I only started the National Public Order Intelligence Unit after coming across it following the prompt for more info about the CIU.Harrypotter (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Merged now. ninety:one 22:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In the time it took you to question the article's points you could easily have confirmed that the Daily Mail's source for their article was ACPO itself, although I suppose they are not universally renowned for their factual accuracy either. Wnjr (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)