Talk:Peter Wright (MI5 officer)

Spycatcher: fact or fiction?
Didn't Peter Wright admit a few years after publication that much of the book was untrue, and that he made up certain "facts" to pad out the work and try to support the "true" (according to him) claims he did make? 81.105.27.137 09:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the whole business about him "discovering" that radio receivers put out a discernible signal and that the CIA didnt know about this until he informed them in 1958 is total balderdash. Navy radios since about 1935 were specially designed to eliminate this problem, so the issue was well known since at least 1935. See any Navy radio manual from that era, which points out why the radios tend to eb of the TRF design ratehr than the superhet type.
 * And you think the Navy told the CIA? Wasn't that top secret? Kraxler 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing a citation either way about what the CIA knew at the time. JoshuaZ 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing where it is that Peter Wright recorded his admissions of fabrication. It was not mentioned in the obits when he died and that would have been big news. Guardian and BBC have nothing on it. The FBI has nothing on it. MI 5 and the people he libeled have left nothing about it either. A lot of people would have benefitted if they could show PW lied. So, where is the admission? Malangthon 18:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I found one source that says that PW did make a retraction. He had stated that a group of 30 MI5 officers had plotted to overthrow the Wilson government because he was sympathetic to the Soviets. Quotes: "There was one allegation in Wright's book that aroused considerable interest and caused the most anxiety, the so-called Wilson plot. This was Wright's assertion that a group of 30 MI5 officers, of which he was one, plotted to get rid of Harold Wilson's government be cause they suspected the prime minister of being excessively sympathetic to the Soviet Union. Sir Antony Duff, the director-general of the day, who was not an MI5 insider and had no personal knowledge of the service's activities in the period concerned, was determined that the story should be thoroughly investigated.

"Extensive interviews were conducted with those who had known Wright and were still working; white-haired gentlemen all over the country were dug out of retirement and asked to cast their minds back, but though much reminiscing went on, no one could recall anything that sounded like what Wright was claiming had happened. Files were trawled through with the same result.

"Finally, a detailed report was written for Whitehall, and ministers felt sufficiently confident to state publicly that no such plot had ever existed. Wright later withdrew the allegation, admitting, in a Panorama programme in 1988, that what the book said about the so-called plot was not true. However, as is always the way of these things, his retraction went almost unnoticed, and the untrue allegation stuck in some circles and remains in currency to this day."

I found this at the Guardian [] which is an excerpt of a book written by Stella Rimington, a former MI5 director. She makes no other mention of an further retractions made by PW. If anyone has a copy of these memoirs it would make for a nice addition to the article and the one on the book, Spycatcher. Malangthon 18:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The assertions of S. Rimington however present certain problems with regard to recorded history. Parliamentary records indicate that there were more than a few who clearly believed there was a plot within the intelligence community against Wilson's government and furthermore Wilson was suspected by the FBI. Go to the House of Commons Hansard Debates for Nov. 23, 1988 and read the comments by Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) [] in column 221 and column 222.

The amount of evidence to at least support the suspicion of a plot within the intelligence community against the Wilson government and the statement by J. Aitken that the investigation (referred to by Stella Rimington in my notes above) did not necessarily mean the appropriate sources had been interviewed leaves the issue of PW's veracity in this matter intact. I have not yet discovered any source that supports the charge that Peter Wright retracted his statements but I can show that there are sources that support his assertions of a plot against Wilson's government. Malangthon 21:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is more at the Hansard Debates site. Check it out at [Mr. Mullin House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Nov 1988]. Clearly they were relying on other sources that had confirmed the existence of long-term plotting against the Wilson government by members of the British intelligence community. Malangthon 23:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is more here on Wiki. Check out the article on Harold Wilson in the section "MI5 plot?" Malangthon 23:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And here is a fairly high source, the MI5 itself. The pertinent section regarding Peter Wright's allegations states: "Wright effectively discredited his own evidence the following year in an interview on the BBC's Panorama programme of 13 October 1988. He admitted that his figure of thirty officers was greatly exaggerated: "The maximum number was eight or nine. Very often it was only three." When pressed further and asked, "How many people, when all the talking died down, were still serious in joining you in trying to get rid of Wilson?", Wright replied, "One, I should say." The interviewer asked, "Is that part of the book perhaps an exaggeration of what you recall now?" to which Wright responded, "I would say it is unreliable." "

I got this from the MI5 website THE 'WILSON PLOT'. Clearly PW has moved away from the position in the book. However, he does not say there was no plot. Earlier he blamed the number of 30 officers on the editor of the book as an exaggeration. Malangthon 23:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of Peter Wrights statements about Hollis have been debunked by Professor Christopher Andrew. Peter Wright, like Jim Angleton(CIA's Head of Counter Intelligence Staff), became lost in a Hall of Mirrors of conspiracy. This was ably assisted by Anatoli Golitsyn, a KGB defector to the USA, who on realising that his information was limited then decided to develop far reaching conspiracies. A later KGB defector to the UK, Oleg Gordievsky demolished the case against Hollis. Haldenrn (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, strictly as an amateur espionage historian, Wright's autobiography has the ring of truth. Even if he came to erroneous conclusions sometimes, I wonder how western intelligence would have benefited if those in roles of leadership over Wright had been more open to his devil's advocate-contrarian-scientific mindset. His autobiography virtually crackles with his frustration with the organizational inertia of the British "old schools club" members around him. Why, for example, would anyone in a leadership role in MI5 or MI6, like Hollis, resist having a thorough analysis done of their work and daily patterns of activity, especially if this scouring process would prove their innocence? Even if such an approach produced a credible case against an innocent member of the intelligence community, the same scientific approach would allow them to offer counter facts and refutations. Such an atmosphere of openness, as unrealistic as it probably would have been, I think would have made use of Wright's incredible talents and energy. As it was, I'm sure that the gifts and abilities of many at that time were squashed and squandered because of bureaucratic and selfish inefficiency. His whole hypothesis of Penkovskiy as a possible double agent I found challenging in the extreme because Penkovskiy has always been one of my heroes. What was wrong with an intelligence scientist positing an opposing hypothesis, especially when the process of investigation might have turned up weaknesses in our intelligence gathering process? Western intelligence suffered from one almost insurmountable disadvantage against the Soviets. The Soviets routinely would use terror and intimidation of the worst kind to enforce performance and conformity among their armies of spies. Force and intimidation were never things that western intelligence could or wanted to use. This meant that the Soviets were able to put many more extremely able people up against us than we could against them. I can't help but feel that Peter Wright offered a scientific, fact-based paradigm that might have shortened the Cold War and saved the lives of a great many patriotic democrats. More encouragement and cooperation for those responsible for managing British intelligence might have advanced the cause of democracy immensely and, ironically, even help them with the civil service careers and prestige that they valued so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunwald (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wright didn't have a science degree or a scientific approach. He was merely a wannabe witch-hunter, who "exposed" the truth about Kim Philby decades after Philby had done so himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of section - explanation
User: ServiceAT deleted a section, citing the following reason:-
 * (removed paragraph as advocacy/opinion and likely self-promotion (misleading link to external bio), see WP:SOAP)

First of all, there is no "self-promotion" (I am not Trowbridge Ford, nor do I know him, and indeed he could well be a nutter for all I know, it's his research which I think is notable and worth drawing attention to)

Second, as to "misleading link to external bio", I took this from another reference to Ford on Wikipedia (see Assassination_of_Olof_Palme), precisely because I didn't want to get into problems with the reference (and therefore if this should not be included here, it should logically also be removed from its long-established place in the Olof Palme article)

So I've reverted. Hope that's ok. Testbed (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Testbed. I think it's not good form to simply restore your contribution.  Rather, we should both be using the BRD methodology (see WP:BRD).  So, it would be better if you left your original change reverted, until we both see whether there is any further discussion here by others.  Technically, I could re-revert your addition and still be within the three revert rule guideline.  But I'd rather that you do it, because I think that un- or re-reverting is rude, and I'm sure that you would also prefer to be seen as meeting WP norms.
 * The underlying issue here is that there is a well-established fact-set re Peter Wright. While you reasonably labeled your section as Alternative View, it does seem based on one single source with a penchant for self-promotion (yes, I accept that it is not you), and an evident non-neutral tone. Almost all former KGB agents of note have by now been disclosed by scholars in the KGB archives.  In fact, the Russian government seems lately to take pride in identifying them (when they are deceased) to show how great the old days were. (I don't agree with this, I'm just observing it.)  There seem to be only a few rare exceptions, such as Perseus (spy).  There is no reason to think that Wright would be an exception, which is more reason that a neutral WP tone would not single out Trowbridge Ford's allegation and lend credibility to it.
 * I'd recommend that the paragraph be deleted and replaced by an entry in the sources section with the external link and a parenthetic remark like "makes allegation that Wright was a Soviet agent". That might be the right prominence for keeping the best WP:NPOV.
 * Cheers, ServiceAT (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To add my tuppence, I just read through the "some of his sources are presented here" link, and there are no sources. Instead, one finds a lengthy, badly-written diatribe composed entirely of unsubstantiated assertions building on unsubstantiated assertions. I would have no issue whatsoever with an argument that Wright was a Soviet agent, if it were backed up by evidence and reasoned argument; however, the "evidence" of a man who evidently cannot use basic English and provides no substantiated sources whatsoever, is not credible. I've removed the section and would ask that it remain removed until better sources can be found. 80.203.19.161 (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

France
As France was an ally of Britain in the 1960 to 1963 years, I am not sure what was going on. Time seems to have been wasted on a purely technological exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.91.77 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone spies on everyone else (within budget restrictions).--Jack Upland (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

.
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.243.66 (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientist?
He did not have a science degree.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference for that is page 15 of Spycatcher. Of course there is a question what a scientist actually is. Wikipedia states, "A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest." I don't think that is what Wright actually did. He was more of a technician.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the disambiguation page to the plain title. There is also consensus to move this article to a different title, but there is no clear consensus as to what the new title should be. Therefore, I am moving the page to Peter Wright (MI5 officer), the most clearly distinguishing title, at this time. Anyone may initiate a new move request to change that disambiguator at any time, per WP:THREEOUTCOMES. Dekimasu よ! 20:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

– This scientist is not a clear primary topic, and as far as I can see there isn't a clear primary topic. The darts player for example gets way more page views for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter Wright → Peter Wright (scientist)
 * Peter Wright (disambiguation) → Peter Wright
 * Oppose — because he wasn't a scientist. Perhaps Peter Wright (author of Spycatcher).--Jack Upland (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter Wright (author) would seem enough. He was a scientist, but is better known as being the author. We could hatnote at the existing Peter Wright (scientist) if we wanted. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comment above.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support moving, perhaps to Peter Wright (MI5). bd2412  T 18:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The redirect targets Peter Wright but would perhaps better target the disambiguation page. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that will and should continue to target "Peter Wright" even if the DAB page is moved to the base name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Peter Wright (scientist) is already in use. I would support move to Peter Wright (author).--Staberinde (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, instead Support Peter Wright (author) In ictu oculi (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess Peter Wright (bugger) is out of the question?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No clue what parenthetical phrase to use for the 1st move, but support 2nd move (as there's no clear primary topic). Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Some move. Views [|Peter_Wright_(darts_player)|Peter_Wright_(footballer,_born_1982)|Peter_Wright_(dancer)|Peter_Wright_(tennis)|Peter_Wright_(Jesuit)|Peter_Wright_(journalist)|Peter_Wright_(rugby_union)|Peter_Wright_(mining_entrepreneur)|Peter_Wright_(disambiguation)] show indeed that the darts player gets significantly more views, even if the darts player is recentism, Peter Wright (dancer) also gets more than a quarter of the views as the current PT.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Peter Wright (author) and Peter Wright (disambiguation) → Peter Wright. Since there are 25 entries at the dab page, there is little to no likelihood that the spycatcher's entry is the primary topic.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Peter Wright (MI5 officer). That's what he's best-known for being. We don't disambiguate people known in other fields as authors just because they wrote their memoirs, which is what Spycatcher was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Peter Wright. The article is biased and used next mi5 head opinion who was never in that business
Next head of MI5 was of poor performance. Her opinon about Peter Wright can not be legitimste Jan Electronik (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * is grave error. He worked for many best and was treated in worst possible manner. Jan Electronik (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)