| Revision as of 21:41, 10 November 2006 editMorton devonshire (talk | contribs)6,576 edits →Not a Hoax← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:35, 22 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,242,192 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 12 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 8 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Cold War}}, {{WikiProject Italy}}, {{WikiProject Germany}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject International relations}}, {{WikiProject Europe}}, {{WikiProject European history}}, {{WikiProject Sociology}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject NATO}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (612 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=Low}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=c |
|
|importance= |
|
|importance= |
|
|ACW-task-force= |
|
|
|Ancient-Near-East-task-force= |
|
|
|Australian-task-force= |
|
|
|Aviation-task-force= |
|
|
|British-task-force=yes |
|
|British-task-force=yes |
|
|Canadian-task-force= |
|
|
|Chinese-task-force= |
|
|
|Classical-task-force= |
|
|
|Dutch-task-force=yes |
|
|Dutch-task-force=yes |
|
|French-task-force=yes |
|
|French-task-force=yes |
|
|German-task-force=yes |
|
|German-task-force=yes |
|
|Indian-task-force= |
|
|
|Italian-task-force=yes |
|
|Italian-task-force=yes |
|
|Japanese-task-force= |
|
|US-task-force=yes|Cold-War=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|
|Maritime-task-force= |
|
|
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|
|Memorials-task-force= |
|
|
|
|B-Class-1= no |
|
|Middle-Ages-task-force= |
|
|
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|Napoleonic-task-force= |
|
|
|
|B-Class-2= yes |
|
|Polish-task-force= |
|
|
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|US-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
|B-Class-3= yes |
|
|Weaponry-task-force= |
|
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|WWI-task-force= |
|
|
|
|B-Class-4= yes |
|
|WWII-task-force= |
|
|
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5= yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject NATO|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Rome|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Operation Gladio/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Operation Gladio/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Operation Gladio/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{controversial (history)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Minor Note== |
|
|
The P2 organization was not Masonic. "mason-like" or "mason-esque", etc. would be more accurate. |
|
|
==US Government response== |
|
|
A response from the US Gov. |
|
|
|
|
|
URL here ... http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-127177.html |
|
|
|
|
|
"Swiss researcher Daniele Ganser, who works at Zurich’s Center for Security Studies, has also been fooled by the forgery . Ganser treats the forgery as if it was a genuine document in his 2005 book on “stay behind” networks, Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe and includes it as a key document on his Web site on the book. Ganser writes, “FM 30-31B is maybe the most important Pentagon document with regard to the stay-behind armies.” He goes on to speculate that the bogus document may provide the blueprint for terrorist acts that occurred during the Cold War in Western Europe." |
|
|
:Curiously, the claim to the authenticity of FM 30-31B is actually examined by Ganser and others, with answers (of course) in the affirmative. |
|
|
:<blockquote>The history of FM 30-31B itself is remarkable. The Pentagon document first surfaced in Turkey in 1973 where the newspaper Baris in the midst of a whole range of mysterious acts of violence and brutality which shocked the Turkish society announced the publication of a secretive US document. Thereafter the Baris journalist who had come into the possession of FM 30-31B disappeared and was never heard of again. Despite the apparent danger Turkish Colonel Talat Turhan two years later published a Turkish translation of the top-secret FM 30-31 and revealed that in Turkey NATO’s secret stay-behind army was codenamed “Counter-Guerrilla” directed by the Special Warfare Department. From Turkey the document found its way to Spain where in 1976 the newspaper Triunfo, despite heavy pressures to prevent the publication, published excerpts of FM 30-31B upon the fall of the Franco dictatorship. In Italy on 27 October 1978 excerpts of FM 30-31B were published by the political magazine L'Europeo, whereupon the printed issues of the magazine were confiscated. The breakthrough for the document came arguably not in the 1970s, but in the 1980s, when in Italy the secret anticommunist P2 Freemason lodge of Licio Gelli was discovered. Among the documents seized by the Italian police ranged also FM 30-31B. The Italian parliamentary investigation into P2 decided to publish FM 30-31B in the appendix of the final public parliamentary report on P2 in 1987. |
|
|
:<cite>http://cryptome.org/fm30-31b/FM30-31B.htm</cite></blockquote> |
|
|
:The State Department, OTOH, describes a completely different process of discovery having to do with an embassy in Bangkok. |
|
|
:] 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That is not the only Soviet forgery this article uncritically accepts as genuine. The Mitrokhin archives (volume II, page 432) reveal definitively that, as long suspected, CIA complicity in the 1961 Algiers Generals' Putsch was based solely on documents written by KGB operatives. This article in general is a cesspool of conspiracy theories by those who insist that Daniele Ganser's flawed research is infallible. My recommendation is that all parts of this article that use Glanser as their sole source say so clearly, so that readers will understand these allegations are not only not verified, but have in some instances been refuted entirely. |
|
|
*Uh huh. No one said Ganser was infallible. In fact, he's skirts around quite a few trivialities regarding military methodology and administration (and though boring to the average reader, it's impact in day-to-day operations of a command is crucial), but simply put, no one else has done the level of civilian research into this as he has. Until they do, he's pretty much the go-to guy on Gladio. ] 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Taxpayment== |
|
|
gladio can be considered a fact. As a taxpayer I always wondered, what it is they do with my money ... |
|
|
besides gladio there must be much more ... |
|
|
:I concur, its not hard to believe that they would such a thing but then I remember Project MK Ultra and 9/11. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Justify your claim. Assertation is not truth. ] 11:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==NATO document== |
|
|
in one of the links there is a NATO document where an official describes "false flag operations" meaning terror attacks such as with a bomb and then claiming it was the other side. this was part of Gladios jobs |
|
|
|
|
|
==Looks like the rightwingers/fauxlibertarians at work here== |
|
|
Looks like the fauxlibertarians/federalists are at work on this thread as they are all over Wikpedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
This wikipedia article reads like it was written by the CIA or CorpGovMedia. GLADIO happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some links for any true lefties who want to fight it out with the wikipedia fauxlibertarian clique, and get things a-right: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/18/120.html |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,528099,00.html |
|
|
http://hnn.us/articles/12253.html |
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0714685003/qid%3D1120946097/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fbbs%5Fb%5F2%5F1/002-2924233-2309609 |
|
|
|
|
|
:I hope anyone who works on the article keeps ] in mind. There is no Misplaced Pages article that should read like it was written solely by any one faction. --] | ] 05:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:To the person providing us with the links to "... fight it out with the wikipedia fauxlibertarian clique ...": this an Encyclopedia, not a political forum. There are plenty other resources on the Internet for political discussion, let alone indoctrination. / ] 10:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I must agree. I don't think a conspiracy theory like this has anything to do with right/left alignment, no matter how you look at it. And what on earth is a 'fauxlibertarian'? A ] who isn't really a libertarian? Or, in the view of the self-labeled 'leftist' who made this comment; any libertarian who is not a ]? :/ ] 12:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If I had to guess (and a guess is precisely what it is), it would be someone who calls themself a libertarian but does not adhere to traditional or commonly-accepted definitions of libertarianism. In my own words, I tend to call such folks the "There-oughta-be-a-law!" libertarians. An example would be someone who calls him/herself a libertarian but who supports such things as seat belt laws for adults (as opposed to children), so-called "blue laws", expansion of government programs or creation of entire new government agencies for purposes not clearly delineated by unambiguous national necessity (e.g. border defense, currency printing, etc). ] 16:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reason for fact check?== |
|
|
Could whoever tagged the article for a fact check outline his/her reasons for doing so? Aside from some minor issues, I don't see much of a problem with this article. If nobody steps forward to outline points to be changed, I suggest removing the "cleanup" and "fact check" boxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second the motion. NORTHWOODS was a concept for legitimizing the American military intervention in Iraq by staging acts of domestic terrorism . At some point the burden of proof shifted; racketeering calls for a pattern without putting all the marbles on a single shot unless you are intending to criminally prosecute. |
|
|
And of course NORTHWOODS was a concept for legitimizing a decisive intervention in '''Cuba''' ] through orchestrated acts of domestic terrorism, rather than Iraq. Andy 1963 |
|
|
|
|
|
==Fact check== |
|
|
I took it out. Probably some guy who just couldn't believe his eyes. Which brings on the issue of citations: when we are dealing with scandals like those on Wiki, shouldn't we put lots of links, including to mainstream newspaper. It is much more difficult for most people to put in doubt things that big newspaper speak about, even though they only write a few lines on the subject. Links to reporters' home sites, editing house, etc. are welcome. Take the ] article: for a subject like that, which media carefully avoided, we have to put loads of links and not speak "in the air", that is with the only argument of our own personal authority. Cheers to all who are trying to help us see a bit more clear into all those "games"! |
|
|
|
|
|
==Remove the translated article== |
|
|
The "translated" article on the bottom of the page is terrible: translate.google.com does a terrible job and I'd suggest to remove the link entirely, maybe somebody can translate is or something, but as it is now, it's useless. Lio ] 19:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Just say it== |
|
|
I propose to remove these phrases and replace them with definite statements: |
|
|
*it is widely believed |
|
|
*had strong ties |
|
|
*is said to be |
|
|
*also has been named |
|
|
*has been accused |
|
|
*may also have had something to do with |
|
|
*some have suspected |
|
|
*it is also unclear |
|
|
*linked to |
|
|
*closely assocated with |
|
|
If it is true we should say so, and cite the source. If we can't cite a source, we should take it out entirely. Thoughts? <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: (click on presentation->history) The comite I was created after a parliamentary investigation into operation Gladio. It's task is keep a watch on the intelligence agencies in Belgium after this scandal. More information can be found on the web site www.dekamer.be although those documents are in dutch or french. ] 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks ] 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Does this mean that now that banner can be removed that this article might be a hoax??] 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Removed. I don't know who put that there. No article with 40+ references could be called a hoax by anyone except a troll. ] 12:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==This is confirmed; why is it a "conspiracy theory" and/or "unconfirmed?"== |
|
|
Authoritative sources for this are all over the place. 3 European PM's, a Europarliament resolution, documents obtained via the FOIA (largely concerning the Gehlen Organization), apprehended agents of Operation Gladio (e.g. Vincenzo Vinciguerra) testifying, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
1. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a real, confirmed, corrupt government/NATO operation like MK-ULTRA. It didn't arise spontaneously. It was entirely unanticipated (apart from some notion of government-sponsored agents provocateur being involved in Red Brigades affairs largely isolated to Italy) until the PM of Italy broke the news. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. It is confirmed. Declassified documents, participants confessing, 3 heads of state (France, Italy, Switzerland) confessing, the Europarliament passing resolutions on it, 3 countries investigating it (Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy) and so on are confirmation in the form of authoritative and supplementary sources. The dismantling of the stay-behind armies was a large public event in a number of countries. The stay-behind army in Finland (IIRC) is still in existence but no longer clandestine; it has some annual public ceremony. |
|
|
|
|
|
If this article is going to stand as it is we ''absolutely'' need verification not just for the Italian operations but also for the other countries it is alleged to have occurred in. The entry on the UK does not, for example, makes no sense. It jumps from the creation of the SOE, which is characterised as a 'stay-behind' army (it wasn't - it operated in foreign territory for the most part) and then jumps to the alleged role of the same(?) organisation in assasinating dissidents without any evidence. ] 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Good work.== |
|
|
I just wanted to congratulate the editors who've improved this article over the last several months. As much as a year ago, I looked at the original article (just titled ] then) and imagined re-organizing it with a separate article for ] and breaking down by country all the stories that have come to light. Obviously Italy is a big issue, while Austria isn't, and the article now reflects that much better. At the time, though, it looked like a horrendously big task and I would have preferred working from print sources as opposed to dodgy POV web sources, so I didn't even start. I'm very pleased to see that it has come to resemble what I hoped it would. --] | ] 08:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The Solar Temple content in this article== |
|
|
I feel that this article would be more coherent if the allegations regaridng the Solar Temple suicides were a separte article, with refrerences and a link "staying behind" in this article (sorry, couldn't resist). |
|
|
As it is, this section (and only this section) merits and has a link to the AMORC article--and I just provided refernce and a link in the AMORC article to this one--but I had to link to the Gladio article generally, though it is about 85% unrelated. I would rather be able to have a mutual reference-and-link between the AMORC article and a Solar Temple article. |
|
|
|
|
|
]. However, I maintained it here as people interested in cults may not be interested in Gladio, and vice-versa (personally, I heard about the OST murders, but they seem of interest to me only now that i see the links with Gladio). |
|
|
|
|
|
==Image & possible translation tasks== |
|
|
Hi! I tried to add an image taken from the Italian wiki, but i donnut know how to upload them. So it didn't work. Anybody out there? And, while i'm at it, if anyone can translate German, there's a few things and Wiki links (oktoberfest bombing, etc.) which would need some. Concerning Italian, I read it a bit, but maybe someone would be interested in translating ], which is related to ], the Grey Wolves member who tried to assassinate the Pope - nobody finds it strange that he was strangely released, and finally, put back in jail after the public uproar in Turkey? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Small mistake and link to a useful source== |
|
|
Wow, I am really impressed. Having written most of the german wiki-article on gladio, I still can learn a lot from this one... Congratulations. But I found a passage which should be corrected, as well. Quote: "According to the perpetrator of the Oktoberfest bomb blast of 1980 in Munich, the explosives came from a Gladio cache near the village of Uelzen in the Lüneburger Heide." This is not completely wrong, but |
|
|
|
|
|
1. did the alleged perpetrator, Gundolf Koehler, die in the blast and thus could not speak out afterwards |
|
|
2. the link to the gladio cache is a speculation, because the only witness (named Heinz Lembke) died just before his interrogation by a district attorney, found hanging from the ceiling of his prison cell (speak of coincidence) |
|
|
|
|
|
This can be found in an excellent article of Daniele Ganser, the swiss historian already mentioned in the wiki-article and the only mainstream scientist who bothered to set up a research project on gladio: |
|
|
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_gladio/Terrorism_Western_Europe.pdf -------- Page 13 of the pdf-file |
|
|
|
|
|
regards, Chris |
|
|
|
|
|
==Merging== |
|
|
It has been suggested that ] should merged into ]. Just for the record I'm against it. There were other types of stay-behind after WW2. There is some evidence of a stay-behind in Sweden, but I guess most of it is still classified. // ] |
|
|
:Stay-behind in Sweden was part of Gladio. ] 20:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think that's been alleged, but Sweden wasn't part of NATO, either. As much as NATO country stay-behinds were irregular and probably illegal, Sweden must be more so. In any case, the Iraq war appears to be largely conducted by a stay-behind operation. I think it's important to define the generic term in its own article so that this one can concentrate on the specific history of the NATO (and related) operation. --] | ] 05:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree, the term "stay-behind" isn't just a Gladio concoction, there have been many stay-behind operations, I've heard the term mentioned somewhere, I don't know where though. --] 21:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Where to begin== |
|
|
Stay behind forces were indeed organized after WWII after the experience of organizing coordinating and arming partisans during the war, but I don’t even know where to begin fixing this article. Sources for large sections of the article include Richard Brenneke who was exposed as a total fraud by at least half a dozen papers from the NY Times, Newsweek, and the Village Voice, and Daniele Ganser a 9/11 conspiracy nut job. Consider some of the following claims in the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
*] was murdered by a Masonic lodge |
|
|
*] was also murdered by this very same ] |
|
|
*] mystery suicides were actually murders performed by Gladio |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an important topic, but as is looks like something strait from ] (who, interestingly enough is also a source). I really don’t have the time and more importantly the foreign language skills to deal with this. ] 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the comments above. This article reeks of biased advocacy of the most far-fetched conspiratorial-theories, and completely ignores the opposite view. There is no mention of opposing views from those who dispute Gladio's very existence, nor answers from those who maintain that is was a legitimate national resistance operation in the case of communist invasion, and was never used for "provocation" or "infiltration of radical groups". ] 23:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are serious difficulties describing covert action in any detail. It will be denied by authorities, which is the definition of covert action, so any/all attributions of covert actions to their actual perpetrators (who are in positions of authority) will be denied by persons in positions of authority as a matter of policy/protocol/etc. The crucial part of Gladio's legitimacy beyond usual covert action research is 3 European PM's confessing and the Europarliament acknowledging it. |
|
|
:The critiques here don't actually work. The P2 Masonic lodge affair is confirmed with extensive Italian criminal investigations (IIRC including Licio Gelli himself), so that's certainly not a "conspiracy theory." The ] and ] assassinations AFAIK are not claimed to be definitively attributable to P2 by reputable sources that I'm aware of (though speculation is there, and quite plausible for the case of Aldo Moro). My understanding of the Brenneke affair is that it's in some sort of unverified limbo, because the denials are essentially official denials and there's little corroborating evidence elsewhere. The Order of the Solar Temple affair I've seen little about and don't expect much in the way of a useful breakthrough in definitive evidence barring a repetition of the sorts of confessions by PM's ca. 1990, unless of course it's just a cult mass suicide in which case one should expect nothing. |
|
|
:LaRouche (who is unreliable) is not cited by this article. |
|
|
:] is not a (9/11 or other) conspiracy nutjob. He's certainly not the only source on these matters, and his claims are very conservatively limited, in fact usually much more limited than typical summarizers of his work. What I've read is very much in the vein of normal covert action research. |
|
|
:I would say that the Brenneke and OST material should be moved to another article vs. anything like a complete rewrite, and that largely on the grounds of relevance. The citation flag should also be removed. |
|
|
:] 19:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Interesting that Ten Dead Chickens honestly acknowledge his lack of understanding of foreign languages which would allow him to verify the sources given and thus be more cautious about his "pov tag". ]'s case is far from being close, and investigations concerning ] makes it more than plausible that Gladio was behind his assassination, a thesis which is quite common. The chief of the Italian secret services at the time has been indicted for negligency in this affair, and he was a member of P2. ]'s possible influence has been pointed out by mainstream newspapers such as '']''. Concerning ] and the ], I agree that these allegations don't have the same sources backing them up. Quite logical, because they are also even more mysterious affairs. However, although ]'s testimony has been discussed, it is not a reason for not including it, as long as it is presented as it should be. It should be noted that ]'s murder is far from having been resolved; if Gladio or P2 was not involved in it, only more (not less!) information can prove it. If some have sources denouncing it as a fraud, please put them in, it can only make the article better. No need to delete it though: admitting that it is a complete lie --- and in those kinds of matter, it is quite difficult separating truth from lies -- this lie was one of the events concerning public knowledge of Gladio, and thus definitely should be quoted here. Same goes for the OST: whatever is thought about those allegations, the fact that they have been made should be reported as such. CQFD. ] 21:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Even if one believes in the overall arc of history here, as I do, it's important that Misplaced Pages maintain its credibility with a strong NPOV handling of questionable material. If the only sources are in a foreign language, it will be very difficult to maintain a credible, edit-war free article here in the English Misplaced Pages. I think it's very important that we be willing to discuss the credibility of sources used, and for the sake of the article's overall integrity we should be willing to discard portions that cannot reach encyclopedic standards. --] | ] 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Finland in 1945== |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following sentence: |
|
|
|
|
|
''In 1945, Interior Minister Leino exposes a secret stay-behind army which is closed down. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
This refers to an operation by Finnish general staff officers in 1944 to hide weapons in order to sustain a large-scale guerilla warfare in the event the Soviet Union tried to occupy Finland in the aftermath of the ]. It was organized without any foreign help, and it should be blatantly obvious that NATO could not be involved, because it wasn't formed until five years later. |
|
|
|
|
|
And I agree with those who think that this whole article is in sore need of a total rewrite. |
|
|
|
|
|
- ] 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is the definition of a ] army. How can you be so sure that it wasn't organized "without any foreign help", when the US Dept. of State itself has acknowledged training secret armies in Europe during the Cold War? NATO is an institutional structure. The men and the money was there before. ] 13:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Well, I can cite a whole corpus of Finnish history-writing, beginning with Matti Lukkari's ''Asekätkentäjuttu''. It was organized wholly by Finnish general staff officers. At the time (late 1944) the Western Powers were still, first and foremost, interested in cooperating with the USSR, at least as long as Germany and Japan were still undefeated. Given that this article is about NATO-sponsored stay-behind organizations, it makes no sense to include a domestic Finnish affair that took place five years before NATO was even founded! - ] 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Consequently I removed the word 'allegedly' from the entry. I leave it for others to decide, whether this Weapon Caches Case (as it's known in Finnish history) has place in this article. - ] 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The problem is that this "Weapon Caches Case", as you call it, is far from being isolated to this Finnish case. Gladio stay-behind had weapons cache in all of Europe: |
|
|
::::"The “stay behind” networks sought to avoid such problems by stockpiling weapons in secret caches ahead of time, and recruiting volunteers who would form the core of resistance movements, if needed." () |
|
|
::::"1951 In Sweden CIA agent William Colby based at the CIA station in Stockholm supports the training of stay-behind armies in neutral Sweden and Finland and in the NATO members Norway and Denmark." - difficult to dismiss as some have done here as "cracknut conspiracy theory" insofar as the US State Dept itself consider it worthfull of reply and of referencing) |
|
|
::::"The situation in each Scandinavian country was different. Norway and Denmark were NATO allies, Sweden held to the neutrality that had taken her through two world wars, and Finland was required to defer in its foreign policy to the Soviet power directly on its borders. Thus, in one set of these countries the governments themselves would build their own stay-behind nets, counting on activating them from exile to carry on the struggle. These nets had to be coordinated with NATO's plans, their radios had to be hooked to a future exile location, and the specialized equipment had to be secured from CIA and secretly cached in snowy hideouts for later use. In the other set of countries, CIA would have to do the job alone or with, at best, 'unofficial' local help, since the politics of those governments barred them from collaborating with NATO, and any exposure would arouse immediate protest from the local Communist press, Soviet diplomats and loyal Scandinavians who hoped that neutrality or nonalignment would allow them to slip through a World War III unharmed." . |
|
|
::::Again, that NATO was institutionnaly created in 1949 does not mean at all that no structure or organization existed before. NATO is a continuation of the US-UK alliance during World War II, it's not like it suddenly appeared from nowhere. ] 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: See ] for more information about Finnish situation. --] 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Long time no see. I'm not taking issue with what (allegedly) went on from 1950s on in Finland and elsewhere. I'm taking issue with your claim that there could have been foreign (namely Western) involvement with the Weapon Caches Case in Finland in 1944-45. I can present lots of reliably referenced research that proves beyond all doubt that all the organizers of the Weapon Caches were Finnish general staff officers who acted on their own initiative (with the tacit approval of their superiors), without any foreign involvement. For example Lukkari's study I alrady mentioned above. In order to justify the inclusion of the Weapon Caches Case in this article about Gladio, one has to present reliable references to the contrary. Anyone?- ] 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::It is quite difficult dismissing ]'s above-mentionned autobiography as unreliable reference. ] 15:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Please reread what has been said above. According to your source, Colby ''"supports the training of stay-behind armies in neutral Sweden and Finland and in the NATO members Norway and Denmark"'' in 1951. Above, I've said ''"I'm not taking issue with what (allegedly) went on from 1950s on in Finland and elsewhere. I'm taking issue with your claim that there could have been foreign (namely Western) involvement with the Weapon Caches Case in Finland in 1944-45.''". |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::In your source there's nothing to tie Colby with the Finnish Weapon Caches Case of 1944-45, the source is talking about activities in the 1950s. So my statement still stands: ''"I can present lots of reliably referenced research that proves beyond all doubt that all the organizers of the Weapon Caches were Finnish general staff officers who acted on their own initiative (with the tacit approval of their superiors), without any foreign involvement. In order to justify the inclusion of the Weapon Caches Case in this article about Gladio, one has to present reliable references to the contrary."'' |
|
|
::::::: - ] 07:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==United Kingdom== |
|
|
The whole article needs much better referencing for its claims, but the UK section seems particularly lacking in supporting references. These are badly needed if claims are made that a (or at least one! as the article claims) left-wing UK prime minister belonged to a secret right-wing operation plan for carrying out numerous political executions of left-wing figures ] 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: on second consideration, I'm taking this part out altogether. It's pure conspiracy paranoia-mongering. ] 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're right, UK part needs some referencing. We can look that up if you want. I'm curious however about the "fact" tag after the "Searchlight magazine" alleged. Should a source be shown to prove that Searchlight said that...? Concerning the UK prime minister, you misread the sentence going a bit quick; it of course meant that one of the person on the list of persons to be murdered in case of a Soviet invasion went on later to become prime minister. No political changes (although that would'nt be more incredible than anything else...) I'll look ref up for this alleged list if you want, but i can find some immediately for similar lists in other countries, including Germany (in a CIA biography actually - Russians had the idea first of similar lists, it appears - if that make it more comfortable to swallow?). ] |
|
|
:: Yes looks like I read too fast. I'll reinstate the text with the citation needed tags. If you can produced references from reasonable sources, that would be good ] 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Still no refs for the UK section? ] 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Austria == |
|
|
|
|
|
Austria is not a NATO-country, but neutral as Finland or Switzerland. Therefore the chapter about Austria should be removed to the non-NATO-countries. --] 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== CIA support for the Algiers putsch? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Do we have sources for CIA support to the Algiers putsch? ] 18:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== LOK == |
|
|
ΛΟΚ (Λόχος Ορεινών Καταδρομών = Mountain Commandos Batallion) is the name of the Greek Army Special Forces. It is not of the stay-behind force. While before 1974 only right of center people were allowed it never was or is a stay-behind force. A subset of former LOK members were the stay-behind forces following the Kokkini Provia (=Red Shipskeen) plan. Unfortunately attempting to change this part of the article will feel like vandalism. The true name of the Greek stay-behind force is unknown though more likely than not it is something like Λόχος Σκιά (Shadow Company).] 23:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's an example of something that's simply blatantly re-reported from Ganser's book, which is online. It's actually pretty close to being copyvio. I've previously suggested this article desperately needs to move from an assertive position to an NPOV position, citing sources and making sure that extraordinary claims are laid at the feet of their authors. As it is, someone seems to have gone ''beyond'' Ganser in this section; he doesn't even feel certain that LOK was involved in the coup, but our article does. Until there's a major revamp, this page is going to continue to have such problems. --] | ] 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There are several factual errors in the opeing paragraph concerning Greece:<br>1. The LOK were not founded until 1946-47, well into the Greek Civil War, and were never secret. LOK remain to this day the main Special Forces units of the Army. <br>2.Papagos is mentioned as "LOK commander" in 1944. In 1944, Papagos was still in Dachau concentration camp, from where he would be released in May 1945, and furthermore did not assume command in the Armed Forces until 1949.<br>3.The "Greek Mountain Brigade" referred to did exist, but was never a secret unit. It did play a role in the December of 1944 events though. <br>If am therefore correcting these references. ] 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Julien Lahaut and Gladio == |
|
|
|
|
|
Gladio was not the name of any of the Belgian stay-behind-networks. Who more specifically are then accussed of assassinating Lahaut? It is better to be specific instead of making generalized Gladio assertions...] 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Actually one can be more specific, the winner is François Goossens from Halle, a Belgian royalist. ] 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::This doesn't contradict suspicions about Gladio. ] 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually you've deleted a source without any reason. ] 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The referenced source was simply too old. Gladio only became public in the early 1990s. So I am not sure about the Lahaut-Goossens-Gladio link. ] 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Although Gladio was publicly revealed by Andreotti in 1990, lots of previous cases had already led to suspicions in various countries. 1990 is the date of the official recognition of its existence, but several observers had suspected its existence since decades, as the various arms-cache cases show, for example. In fact, Gladio was acknowledged in the non-public part of the 1975 ] report, for example. The authors of this book could thus suspect Gladio's influence in 1985, although Andreotti hadn't yet acknowledged it, thus triggering the scandal and the creation of the three parliamentary commissions (in Belgium, Switzerland & Italy). ] 15:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Please don't delete whole paragraphs with comments like "read the parliamentary reports", especially when you've just showed that, at least for Belgium, you're not familiar with the context (since you've just seen Goosens' role). ] 00:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Just to note, there has never been a parliamentary inquiry into the death of Lahaut, although the justice commission of the Belgian Chamber is dealing with such a proposal currently. But that was not the reason why I removed the Lahaut piece. |
|
|
::::::The parliamentary inquiry into the Nijvel gang and "Gladio" found that it was preposterous to say this was a SDRA8 operation. It also said the 1973 coup d'etat was a media hype based on a non-investigated opinion of a low ranking intelligence officer, maybe connected to making certain politicians look bad. To say ] was a SDRA8 front is in the same category of Nijvel gang, no proof found. Of course these allegations can be discussed (as they are already) in their respective articles, no need to invoke Original Research in this article (which is one reason why this article is so long). I am not sure what the le Soir bit has to do with Gladio. It is pretty specific to Belgium, and should maybe be discussed in the ] article. The Gladio parliamentary report of 1991 has the SDRA8 operation in detail, why do I not see anything from that inquire back in the Belgian section here? It is online, you can read French, so you shouldn't have any troubles in finding it and reading it. ] 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The very nature of this subject makes it quite difficult to positively assert anything other than what has been admitted by the states themselves, although the subject itself requires to include independent investigations and not only official state documents (which have been provided). For this reason, complete deletion is not acceptable, although of course the text may be modified to explain various hypothesis & reactions. Of all these events, the Brabant massacres were those which were most closely related to Gladio and had an important part in the creation of the parliamentary commission, although, as you note, it didn't reach any conclusive conclusion (but it didn't invalidate the suspicions either). All in all, I'm sure we can discuss about the formulation, but removing all the discussion is just ignoring the problem (and the reason for the creation of one of the three parliamentary commissions on Gladio). The problems could be discussed more in details in the respective articles, but because of ], a resume should of course be kept here. You must admit that the parliamentary report, however important it is, is only one source among others in this subject, and doesn't warrant, for example, the deletion of the book cited. Furthermore, there are very strong suspicions that Westland New Post was a SDRA8 front, and if no definite proof have been founded, this must be noted in the article. ] 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I've moved some of the material to the ] article, under a conspiracy section. I am still not sure what to do with the Le Soir bit. The section on Belgium itself can be enlarged maybe with some neutral info. ] 04:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== main articles on Gladio == |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest renaming main country entries on "Gladio" to something along the lines of "Belgian stay-behind network" or "Italian stay-behind network," which are neutral names. "Gladio" is known under different names in different countries, using Gladio as name everywhere is just generalizing, and deminishes national differences. ] 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not a bad idea, if this is not an excuse for ] which would remove all the content from here. The content must be resumed, but this should remain the international page, as "Gladio" is the name under which it became known in the general public. ] 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==WP:MilHist Assessment== |
|
|
I really have no comment on whether or not it is too long - a cursory examination seems to indicate that the material presented is relevant and interesting, and is not written in a rambling manner. It is a very long article to plow through, and I am sure that some of these sections could become simply "See also" links; however, the introduction at the very beginning of the article and the Introduction section which follows it seem to summarize the topic quite nicely. The casual reader is given all the information he needs, and does not need to read the rest; but the rest is still there for those interested. ] 19:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:In my humble opinion, it should be split into multiple pieces before it becomes unmaintainable. The potential for further expansion is enormous. The article hasn't even begun to explore the connections to the Bavarian Illuminati and the Priory of Sion. --] 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== fact check == |
|
|
|
|
|
it appears to me that a great deal of citation is still necessary in the entry. since previous attempts by other parties to label it as needing as much have failed, I won't go so far as to do that, but I will say that the article would be even more informative and convincing had it the proper citations. as it stands now, it seems like most of it is allegation. if so, it should be labelled as such. the topic is extremely intriguing as it stands. I would love to see it with all the right citations added. ] 18:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)spankmecold |
|
|
|
|
|
::They are exactly 41 sources used in various occurences. Feel free to add a "citation needed" tag wherever you see a statement not supported by the source in question, as it can only improve the reliability of the article. ] 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The sources are quite unbalanced throughout this article, alas. ] 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've put the TotallyDisputed tag to this article. The intro implies that CIA and NATO were responsible for the terrorist attacks, an assertion one cannot make to be ''factual''. ] 15:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Danish Archbishop?== |
|
|
Golly! Does anyone but me read the Old Testament anymore? You ever meet any Dane, heck anyone at all named '''Absalom?''' The story of Absalom is in the Book of Samuel for Pete's sake. Is the rest of this article as screwed up as this? This really upsets me. ] 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Shall we have revert war on this? ''Cplakidas'' reverted the reference to the Second Book of Samuel back to this Danish Archbishop. Can anyone cite such a person? ] 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you guys mean Bishop ] of Lund (c. 1128–21 March 1201)? ] 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Really? Imagine that! I shall have to grove over to '''Cplakidas'''' page before he reads my nasty remarks! (Who the heck would name their son Absolom?) ] 16:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It was traditional (and often still is) for people to change their names when they become a priest, bishop or pope (note that "John Paul II" is not a common name for a Pole. His real name was Karol Józef Wojtyła) ] 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::First of all, ], '''relax'''. Second, '''I''' didn't do anything with regards to that archbishop. Check the again before becoming annoyed at people... ] 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::That "the story of Absalom is in the Book of Samuel" is not disputed by anybody; the relevancy to this article here is. The reference to the Danish archbishop (which Absalom ''also was'') is sourced. ] 23:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==I Shall Start a ReWrite== |
|
|
Starting at the top, going to the bottom, let me first try to fix spelling, wording and punctuation. If I get that done, I will then try to put the Italy stuff in the Italy section, or the Italy article. Then we can see what we got and try to make this read properly.] 08:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think Daniele Ganser is over-sourced in this article. It would be better if at least two independent reputable sources are used for assertions in this article, instead of sourcing everything to Ganser alone. ] 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ireland? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ireland seems to be the only country without a Gladio network. Anybody know why? ] 10:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:No NATO member? ] 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Lots of non-Nato members had Gladio networks. ] 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, CIA presence is ubiquitous. But I doubt a Soviet revolution could easily start in Ireland, which is still a deeply catholic country. ] 09:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The CIA were not so trusting in other countries - look at what they were up to in Latin America - also Catholic countries. ] 11:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Another reason might be because of the cozy relationship of the CIA with the Brits, which of course does not fall well with the Irish government. ] 22:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think there might be something in this, Intangible. Possibly Ireland was considered MI6's turf. Its in the Irish papers today that MI6 has been active in Ireland, but there are few details. Another question is the relationship between Gladio and the IRA. It is well known that MI5 had extensively infiltrated all the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland and had a hand in some of the worst bombings as a way to discredit these organisations. Its an interesting bit of history, but we'll probably never know the details. ] 22:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== latest reference == |
|
|
|
|
|
This seems now to be referenced to an activist web-site, hardly a reliable source. It is no problem that people allege things, but at least don't make appear that this is ''factual'' information, otherwise this article will never improve. ] 22:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:To which ref are you refering to? ] 23:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The Sergio Sorin piece. ] 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==What Misplaced Pages Requires== |
|
|
Dear Editors, please familiarize yourselves with ]. Misplaced Pages requires reference to reputable sources, of which there are exactly zero to support this black-helicopter fantasamorghia. If you strip out all of the sensational unsupported claims, there would be nothing left of this article. If you insist on keeping this article in Misplaced Pages, please cite to mainstream reliable sources to support these incredible claims. ] 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please also see ], it is an Official Policy of Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
{| align="center" style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333; padding: 5px;" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| align="left" | |
|
|
|
|
|
'''The policy:''' |
|
|
# '''Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources'''. |
|
|
# '''Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor'''. |
|
|
# '''The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed,...Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long,...Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. ] 06:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. I am currently more in 'damage control mode' with this article, namely that the more outrageous (if you can talk about) claims are prevented from re-entered into this article as ''fact''. (like dubious claims that NATO and CIA are directly responsible for the ]). ] 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are plenty of legitimate, reliable sources here. Please create a section for challenged source. ] 23:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==] WP:RS?== |
|
|
|
|
|
Every single section that relies upon Statewatch must be sourced. "Statewatch" does not meet the reliability guidelines under ]. ]<font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What are you basing that judgment on? For example: The Guardian quotes statewatch 73 times in their published articles , Israel's quotes them, the BBC quotes them over 20 times Please explain why you think StateWatch fails WP:RS? ] 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Statewatch is an advocacy organization. Here in the US, newspapers quote advocacy organizations all of the time, but that does not make them any less advocacy organizations, nor does it make their websites reputable sources under Misplaced Pages standards. Under your standard, http://www.nrcc.org would be a reputable source. ]<font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::All the links you removed are not StateWatch opinions or article, but historical articles from main stream newspaper articles archived on the statewatch On the one hand, there is no problem using historical articles as references even if they are unavailable on the internet (as it is ok to refer to books), however, I can't see any reason not to provide links to the StateWatch archive. ] 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Inaccuracy in the beginning == |
|
::::I can see one reason, independent of ]: There's no information at the link. It's a search link that yields zero results. ] 03:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ya, thats a good reason. (It worked about a month ago. Odd) ] 03:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you can read by the article itself, the aim of Gladio was not just to face a possible Warsaw Pact invasion, but also to fight any kind of communism rise (expecially in Italy, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party were very strong, and the possibility that they could have won the elections was not so unlikely). So the actual incipit is a little bit reductive. As a non-native speaker I prefer not to edit the article myself, but I would find appropriate to improve it. The Italian version (which you could take the cue from) says, approximately: "''Operation Gladio is the codename for a clandestine operation promoted by CIA and NATO during the Cold War to build a "stay-behind" paramilitar structure to oppose the possible attack by the Warsaw Pact countries against the West Europe countries, as well as to fight communism with the use of psychological warfare and the tecniques of the false flag''". I see you have issues about the last part of the sentence (psychological warfare and false flag), and I'm not interested in (nor I have the competence to) debating about it properly. However, the fact that Gladio wasn't just created agianst a possible military invasion but also against inner communist forces, is well-known and confirmed, and I think it should be mentioned in the opening lines. ] (]) 18:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
::Statewatch is a reliable source (if it's good for Guardian & the BBC, it's good enough for Misplaced Pages). Furthermore, the reference are not even Statewatch ''per se'', but news articles (recensed by Statewatch). Finally, the fact that the data is copyrighted and that the link has therefore become dead doesn't make the info less "real": it's not because you can't access it freely that it doesn't exist. The info is still there, the news article still exist, the Statewatch recensus of them still exist, and the events still have happened - unless you can prove the reverse. ] 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Late response, but thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately, as many american historians ignore and/or disapprove of the italian investigations, I cannot put this as a fact in the headline. But it is necessary to put the results of the judicial and parliamentary investigations. ] (]) 22:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
:::I see you made the changes and then added your reasoning to the talk page. It would be helpful to do the opposite next time. Concerning your reasoning, “unless you can prove the reverse.” ] states very plainly “'''The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.'''” Thanks, ] 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::According to the latest, peer-reviewed serious scientific study which is based on recently declassified Italian documents the above myth is finally laid to rest. |
|
::::I take no sides I am just a source fiend, but because a newspaper quotes them doesnt mean it finds them reliable. Newspapers quote random people on the street, its not giving credance to them, just using them as a source for what they are saying. --]<s>]</s> 23:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I quote: "A note from March 1972 specified that the possibility of using ‘Gladio’ in the event of internal subversions, not provided for by the organization’s statute and not supported by NATO directives or plans, was outside the scope of the original stay-behind and, therefore, ‘never to be considered among the purposes of the operation’. The pressure put forward by the Americans during the 1960s to use ‘Gladio’ for purposes other than those of a stay-behind network would appear to have failed in the long term." |
|
:I agree with Devonshire that Statewatch is not a RS because it is an advocacy site, and is not a reputable news organization. That does not mean that news articles from The Independent or The Guardian ''all'' should be tossed out, each article in a newspaper should individually be put against the ] principle. ] 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::and: |
|
|
::"Finally, General Paolo Inzerilli, Chief of Staff of SISMI and responsible for ‘Gladio’ from 1974 to 1986, in a testimony to the Italian parliament confirmed that during the 1970s, the bilateral agreements between American and Italian services were subject to annual reviews, and they concluded definitively in 1976, thus ending all relations between the CIA and the Italian services regarding stay-behind operations."<ref>Francesco Cacciatore (2021): Stay-behind networks and interim flexible |
|
|
strategy: the ‘Gladio’ case and US covert intervention in Italy in the Cold War, Intelligence and |
|
|
National Security, DOI: 10.1080/02684527.2021.1911436</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
::We do not rate each article in a newspaper for RS. That it not how WP:RS works. The newspaper is the source, and if it passes RS then anything in it is permitted under WP:RS. ] 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
::I intend including this in the article in order to finally start to re-balance the article onto solidly researched information and away from the conspiracy theories. ] (]) 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
:Considering the awards Statewatch has received , the research documentation they provide , the fact their material has been submitted to the UK Parliament and other EU institutions , and more importantly is available from the UK Parliament publication archives , and is cited in multiple UK Parliament Select Committee Reports , I think we can conclude Statewatch is both notable and reliable. ] 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I am noticing a concern with getting the facts right, and that this challenging approach has produced a disjointed and confusing article. A more harmonious approach would be to bring the diverging narratives together in a dialogical style. I have revised the article's introduction according to this approach, and would encourage my fellow editors to apply the same method throughout. ] (]) 01:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
There are a couple of problems here. One, Statewatch is not a newspaper. It republishes material in bulk supplied from other sources. Two, even if it where a newspaper, you can not cite to the Newspaper itself. You have to cite the article that actually carried the material. In other words you can not use for example the New York Times as a source. You have to source to a particular article within the NYTimes, giving the author, title, date. Like this: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== High Fog Index == |
|
*Plunkett, John. , ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the third paragraph of the section entitled "Post war creation" ("NATO provided a forum to integrate, coordinate, and optimise... ...in support of SACEUR’s military forces.") this article has a ] of 18 - is pitched above the reading level of a College Graduate. I am a college graduate and I am finding this article extremely hard going. |
|
Anything without a proper citation needs to be removed. ] 16:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just one example. The sentence, "After the creation of NATO in 1949, the CCWU was integrated into the "Clandestine Planning Committee" (CPC), founded in 1951 and overseen by the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), transferred to Belgium after France's official withdrawal from the NATO military organization – but not from NATO – which was not followed by the dissolution of the French stay-behind paramilitary movements." What exactly is being said here? Several events are being assembled into one sentence but it is far from obvious what the order of these events is and whether there is any causal connection between them. |
|
== brenneke == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically, what was founded in 1951? NATO, CCWU or CPC? (I can find the answer to this but shouldn't have to if I am reading this.) Was CCWU transferred after the creation of NATO or after the withdrawal of France from the NATO military organisation? What caused (or failed to cause) the dissolution of French stay-behind paramilitary movements? |
|
The records of the 102th congressional records show that richard brenneke is a conspiracist. It includes clippings of a Newsweek article from November 11, 1991. ] 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is stacked with prose like this making its usefulness limited. |
|
: Brenneke is, to put it mildly, a nut. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I took the liberty of deleting the paragraph you refer to. It does not add any information that can not be found elsewhere in the article and, on top of that, in clear English.] (]) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC) |
|
::I think Bush is a nut. Our thoughts on the matter are OR. ] 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Moved quote from intro to Italy section. == |
|
== Not a Hoax == |
|
|
Please stop placing a hoax notice on this article. It is bordering on Trollish behavour. There is zero doubt that Gladio did exist. If you have a problem with a particular section or claim, then put a notice on that point, not the whole article. ] 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you confine the article to the short period following WWII, yes, there were operations similar to Gladio, but not called Gladio. If you are talking about ascribing the deaths of Aldo Moro and other nefarious acts to Gladio, then that's kooky conspiratorial thinking. Gladio as it is described in this article is a complete hoax and fabrication of the old Soviet propaganda machine. If you wish to describe it as Soviet propaganda and a hoax, then this article may stand without the tag. Otherwise, prepare to see it criticized. ]<font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But that quote needs contextualizing. Please add context. What efforts is the author referring to in that article? The quote as it stands is vague, and I don't understand to what it specifically refers. |
|
::The Italian, Belgian and US Governments disagrees with you. Or are they in on the hoax? Sounds like your are the conspiratorial one. ( ] 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The US Information Agency refers to the supposed field manual describing Gladio as a "Thirty Year-Old Soviet Forgery Cited by Researchers." That's hardly an endorsement. The US cite you refer to debunks the myths described in this article. ]<font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 19:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No it doesn't. It says that the Field Manual is a hoax and says Gladio wasn't a Terrorist organisation. It doesn't say Gladio wasn't real. Please try to read the article, not your own pre-conceptions. ] 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Here's a document released by the UK government in May 2006 . Please also read ]. It doesn't cover 'Soviet' hoaxes unless the soviets edit wikipedia themselves. ] 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::From your FCO document, about the Belgian Gladio network: "The Belgian press has made as much as it can of this story, but without attracting much public interest. Conspiracy theorists have sought to link the revelation of the existence of the networks to the scandals linking police and Surete officers, right-wing extremists and violent crime which were the subject of a Parliamentary commission of enquiry which reported in May of this year." Yes, Gladio existed. No, it did not exist in the kind of way this article perpetrates it to have been. That's the hoax. ] 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That information needs to be added. |
|
::::If you disagree with the content of the article that it one thing - but the hoax template is for articles on things that don't exist. Gladio exited - the hoax template, which Devonshire placed on this article 3 times, is the wrong template. Put a dispute template up if you feel the need. ] 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It doesn't quite explicitly say that at ] or ]. The template itself also states that the hoax does not have to pertain the whole article. ] 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If you think a part of the article is a hoax, move the template to that section. ] 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::My complaint is that that the junk is so interspersed throughout the article that it makes the whole thing suspect. ]<font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::::::Putting a 'hoax' template on the whole article doesn't help improve it. ] 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::It's a warning to viewers that the article is worthless. We should use it more often around here on CT articles. ]<font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Are you honestly trying to claim that Gladio is a "conspiracy theory"? The Italian government were the ones who announced its existence. That is not a theory. However, your contention that the 'soviets' invented it is a theory. Can you provide some evidence that they did? All the soviet era documentation is public now. Find the official soviet document admitting they made it up. ] 21:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Right here. Yes, I'm saying that the article as written right now is full of CT-connect-the-dots-to-an-absurd-conclusion level. ]<font size=2><font color="Blue">]</font></font>] 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
As you can read by the article itself, the aim of Gladio was not just to face a possible Warsaw Pact invasion, but also to fight any kind of communism rise (expecially in Italy, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party were very strong, and the possibility that they could have won the elections was not so unlikely). So the actual incipit is a little bit reductive. As a non-native speaker I prefer not to edit the article myself, but I would find appropriate to improve it. The Italian version (which you could take the cue from) says, approximately: "Operation Gladio is the codename for a clandestine operation promoted by CIA and NATO during the Cold War to build a "stay-behind" paramilitar structure to oppose the possible attack by the Warsaw Pact countries against the West Europe countries, as well as to fight communism with the use of psychological warfare and the tecniques of the false flag". I see you have issues about the last part of the sentence (psychological warfare and false flag), and I'm not interested in (nor I have the competence to) debating about it properly. However, the fact that Gladio wasn't just created agianst a possible military invasion but also against inner communist forces, is well-known and confirmed, and I think it should be mentioned in the opening lines. Ripepette (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Based on the third paragraph of the section entitled "Post war creation" ("NATO provided a forum to integrate, coordinate, and optimise... ...in support of SACEUR’s military forces.") this article has a Gunning Fog Index of 18 - is pitched above the reading level of a College Graduate. I am a college graduate and I am finding this article extremely hard going.
Just one example. The sentence, "After the creation of NATO in 1949, the CCWU was integrated into the "Clandestine Planning Committee" (CPC), founded in 1951 and overseen by the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), transferred to Belgium after France's official withdrawal from the NATO military organization – but not from NATO – which was not followed by the dissolution of the French stay-behind paramilitary movements." What exactly is being said here? Several events are being assembled into one sentence but it is far from obvious what the order of these events is and whether there is any causal connection between them.
Specifically, what was founded in 1951? NATO, CCWU or CPC? (I can find the answer to this but shouldn't have to if I am reading this.) Was CCWU transferred after the creation of NATO or after the withdrawal of France from the NATO military organisation? What caused (or failed to cause) the dissolution of French stay-behind paramilitary movements?
I took the liberty of deleting the paragraph you refer to. It does not add any information that can not be found elsewhere in the article and, on top of that, in clear English.Para medic TaSi (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But that quote needs contextualizing. Please add context. What efforts is the author referring to in that article? The quote as it stands is vague, and I don't understand to what it specifically refers.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.svg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
