Talk:Operation Gladio

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. Intangible 22:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To which ref are you refering to? Tazmaniacs 23:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Sergio Sorin piece. [1] Intangible 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A journalist member of Amnesty International? When will you stop claiming you know better than newspapers (see BBET edits, and various removal of "far right" epithets to parties such as the Vlaams Belang or National Front?) Tazmaniacs

The problem was that you interjected the things that this person Sorin said as being factual into the Wikipedia article, while the article Sorin wrote does not even make mention on what sources Sorin bases his arguments. And please do not make strawman arguments. Comment on content, not on the contributor. What BBET or Vlaams Belang have to do with this article is a mystery to me, unless you just want to tarnish me. Intangible 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia Requires

Dear Editors, please familiarize yourselves with WP:RS. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, please cite to mainstream reliable sources to support these incredible claims. Morton devonshire 05:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is an Official Policy of Wikipedia.

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, Wikipedia 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. Brimba 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 Bologona bombing in 1980). Intangible 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of legitimate, reliable sources here. Please create a section for challenged source. Tazmaniacs 23:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Couple new RS references I found. First is a peer-reviewed journal, second is by a well-known scholar.

• "The United States, the French Right, and American Power in Europe, 1946–1958" Deborah Kisatsky, The Historian, Volume 65 Issue 3 Page 615 - March 2003
• "Hiding Western Terror," Edward S. Herman, Nation (June 1991), p. 21

Derex 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Poked a bit more, here's a few more I found.

• Puppetmasters: The political use of terrorism in Italy, Philip Willan, (Constable: London, 1991) note: Willan is a journalist for the The Sunday Telegraph
• Gladio: The War That Never Was Scobie, William. World Press Review. New York: Feb 1991.Vol.38, Iss. 2; pg. 37
• Italy: The Sword's Other Edge The Economist. London: Dec 15, 1990.Vol.317, Iss. 7685; pg. 47, 2 pgs
• UNITED STATES-TURKISH INTELLIGENCE LIAISON SINCE WORLD WAR II. Gunter, Michael M. Journal of Intelligence History 2003 3(1): 33-46.
• THE MOBILISATION OF THE INTERNAL COLD WAR IN ITALY. Cook, Bernard. History of European Ideas [Great Britain] 1994 19(1-3): 115-120.
• Cold war secrets: an uncovered group embarrasses NATO (Gladio) Jenish, D'Arcy. Maclean's. Toronto: Dec 10, 1990.Vol.103, Iss. 50; pg. 55
• The Gladiators Daniel Singer, The Nation, Dec 10 1990, p 720
• THE REVELATIONS OF 'GLADIATORS' RATTLE ITALIANS POSTWAR SECRET SOCIETY HAD US HELP; Mary Beth Sheridan, Associate Press article, Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Nov 22, 1990. p. A.36
• EVOLUTION IN EUROPE; Italy Discloses Its Web Of Cold War Guerrillas CLYDE HABERMAN, Special to The New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 16, 1990. pg. A.16
• Italy: Light of the Sword The Economist. London: Nov 10, 1990. Vol. 317, Iss. 7680; p. 56 (2 pages)

Note, some of these do support the notion of Gladio as not exactly benign. For example: Abstract on Gunter's article says in part " Surreptitious links such as Gladio or stay-behind organizations might have had unintended consequences involving domestic Turkish politics, Mehmet Ali Agca's attempt to assassinate the pope, the Kurds, and the Susurluk scandal in 1996."

StateWatch WP:RS?

Every single section that relies upon Statewatch must be sourced. "Statewatch" does not meet the reliability guidelines under WP:RS. Morton Devonshire^Yo 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 [2], Israel's Haaretz quotes them, the BBC quotes them over 20 times [3] [4] Please explain why you think StateWatch fails WP:RS? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 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 Wikipedia standards. Under your standard, http://www.nrcc.org would be a reputable source. Morton Devonshire^Yo 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 (diff) 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. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see one reason, independent of WP:RS: There's no information at the link. It's a search link that yields zero results. *Spark* 03:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya, thats a good reason. (It worked about a month ago. Odd) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 03:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Statewatch is a reliable source (if it's good for Guardian & the BBC, it's good enough for Wikipedia). 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. Tazmaniacs 21:34, 8 November 2006 (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.” WP:V 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, Brimba 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --NuclearZer0 23:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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 WP:RS principle. Intangible 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the awards Statewatch has received [5], the research documentation they provide [6], the fact their material has been submitted to the UK Parliament and other EU institutions [7], and more importantly is available from the UK Parliament publication archives [8], and is cited in multiple UK Parliament Select Committee Reports like this one on Foreign Affairs , I think we can conclude Statewatch is both notable and reliable. *Spark* 13:32, 9 November 2006 (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:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.

Anything without a proper citation needs to be removed. Brimba 16:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be some over interpretations about reliable sources and WP:V here: being printed in a newspaper does not make something a reliable source, and every source is decided on a case by case basis. Reliable sources are not a black-and-white issue, and being discussed in certain newspapers doesn't automatically mean the text meets WP:V or WP:RS. Sandy (Talk) 15:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers articles are reliable sources. Read again the guidelines. Following your reasoning, there is no reliable source other than what you like. This is most subjective, whilst the fact that reliable newspapers published articles on the subject is just that : a fact. You may disagree with the newsarticle, you may even be paranoiac and not believe mainstream medias. But that's up to you: Wikipedia just provides the sources for the assertions, and they do not come from marginal organizations here, but from the European parliament, mainstream newspapers, etc. Concerning Statewatch, it is both notable & reliable, and anyway was refered to because it listed newspapers articles (that's a database). Finally, Brimba's argument immediately above, that you can't link to a newspaper and a specific date, is his own personal opinion. If you in a library, you can easily find the article going to this newspaper and watching for the article. His way of quoting newspapers is an American way or Anglo-Saxon way (in a lot of other countries, name of the journalist is not quoted, as if it was published by the newspaper, it is endorsed by the newspapers' editors). Tazmaniacs

brenneke

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. Intangible 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Brenneke is, to put it mildly, a nut. Torturous Devastating Cudgel

I think Bush is a nut. Our thoughts on the matter are OR. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 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. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Italian, Belgian and US Governments disagrees with you. Or are they in on the hoax? Sounds like your are the conspiratorial one. (US Government on Gladio Belgian Government on Gladio Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 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. Morton Devonshire^Yo 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. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You actually are proving Morton's point on this thread. Sean 18 Nov 2006

Here's a document released by the UK government in May 2006 (doc) (source page). Please also read Wikipedia:Hoaxes. It doesn't cover 'Soviet' hoaxes unless the soviets edit wikipedia themselves. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 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. Intangible 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't quite explicitly say that at Template:Hoax or Wikipedia:Hoax. The template itself also states that the hoax does not have to pertain the whole article. Intangible 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think a part of the article is a hoax, move the template to that section. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 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. Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting a 'hoax' template on the whole article doesn't help improve it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 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. Morton Devonshire^Yo 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. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Right here[9]. Yes, I'm saying that the article as written right now is full of CT-connect-the-dots-to-an-absurd-conclusion level. Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That link is not evidence of a hoax, simply a claim that it is a hoax. No evidence is offered.

It would be far more helpful if you would deal with the specific problems you see with the article rather than branding the entire thing a hoax, when it clearly isn't. Doing that makes you seem dishonest, when perhaps, you are merely lazy. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Monty, Monty, Monty... Did you forget we have an AntiVandalBot when you tried to delete all the article content? This isn't a mature way to edit. Please raise specific points and issues you have with the content.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New Hoax Discussion

I think a case can be made that some of the content here is based on a hoax, even if Ganser, and the editors who have written this page, are sincere. It is at least worth discussing the tag. It might be applied to the whole page, or to a section, or we might add a section on Gladio as a hoax. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested if you can quote a source showing it is a hoax, or part of it, or if someone can show a specific part of the article which is not supported by the references. I'm sure there are parts of the article that need work, but no-one pushing this 'hoax' mantra have pointed out specifics. Without specifics its hard to achieve anything. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"As for forgeries, these have been used by the Soviets since soon after the 1917 revolution. The most elaborate in recent years was US Army Field Manual 30-31B, an entire manual that urged American officers to spy on their host countries and in some cases subvert their governments. The fake manual first appeared in Turkey in 1975. It was later circulated in some 20 countries to try to implicate the CIA in the Red Brigades' murder of Christian Democrat leader Aldo Moro in Italy in 1978." - Elizabeth Pond, The Christian Science Monitor, February 28, 1985 Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! Finally specific issues... Didn't someone remove reference to the FM already? Or was that on a different article? The FM is one small part of the Gladio evidence. I don't think all mention of it should be removed entirely, but I don't mind. If nothing else, presenting the doubts about this documents introduces richness and subtlty to the reader and shows that not everything is known. To my knowledge, the only evidence that the FM is a forgery is that the US government says it is. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the bibliography, this phony appendix seems central to much of the research. I wonder, if someone slipped something like this under my office door, how could anyone prove it was not a copy of a secret document? After all, being secret, the government would deny all knowledge. Any inconsistencies could be dismissed as deliberate misinformation to discredit leakers, further supporting my theory. I could write a book raising questions, implying connections, admitting that not everything was known. Of course really it would be nonsense; maybe a prank by co-workers. I think the hoax tag may be appropriate here. I would prefer that to the 'non-compliant' tag. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please discredit the head of Gladio discussing this on tv and other sources (see below, Conspiracy theorists quoting eachother?) since you're clearly not prepared to name specifics in the article. 81.165.161.21 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, the references in the bibliography appear to rely heavily on this phony document. That suggests to me that parts of this story may be a hoax, and that the hoax tag may be appropriate. If you were not talking to me, please ignore my reply. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now we might be getting somewhere. Which references are those and why do you think they rely on that document? I have the impression this article is stuck in an infinite loop: 1) one person says this article is a hoax 2) others ask which sources in particular are hoaxes and why (if all of them are hoaxes, this should be easy) 3) There is never a response 4) goto 1. And in the mean time, if there are sources that are questionable, they aren't fixed or identified. 81.165.161.21 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First, don't put to me more than I have said. I think the hoax tag may be justified, and I said why. In the Bibliography, the first item is Various Documents, with a link to isn.ethz.ch. Following that link, the third item is described as "US Field Manual 30-31B 18", said to have been written by General William C. Westmoreland. I have not found a good review of Ganser's work, but http://cryptome.org/fm30-31b/FM30-31B.htm quotes the Moscow Times as saying, Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that "do not react with sufficient effectiveness" against "communist subversion." How much of the references for our page rely on Ganser's "smoking gun?" I think the burden is on the person who wants to include the information to show that the sources are good, not on me to prove that there is no secret appendix. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're claiming that the third link in the first link in the bibliographic section is not fair? I can live with that. It was too general to begin with. If we split it up, how would you relate to individual items? 81.165.161.21 19:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. I think Ganser's (and others) reliance on this phony appendix raise enough questions to suggest adding the hoax tag to the page. Regarding other changes to the page, it depends what you want to say and what source you are citing to support it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what are you quoting from 'Ganser' and from what book/whatever he published. I don't live near a public library, but with public transportation, I can get most likely any source you have access to. Thanks! 81.165.161.21 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. Of course you see the link I included. Do you think the hoax tag is appropriate? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Ganser's (and others) reliance on this phony appendix raise enough questions..." etc.. I want to know the book and page where Ganser said this that so we can all discard it and put it behind us. Although I'm not a registered user, I can look up your allegations and verify it. 81.165.161.21 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You see the link above to cryptome.org, where they quote from the Moscow Times' favorable review of Ganser's book. How much of Ganser's work relies on this phony appendix? Apparently we do not know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Repeated!) You said: "Ganser's (and others) reliance on this phony appendix raise enough questions..." etc.. I want to know the book and page where Ganser said this that so we can all discard it and put it behind us. Although I'm not a registered user, I can look up your allegations and verify it. 81.165.161.21 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize. Clearly you find repitition no more convincing than I do. I don't see the point on cycling through another round. Maybe others have thoughts about the hoax tag. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a full bibliography and you yourself show how this appendix is only a minor part of it. Your effort to use it as a reason for the "hoax tag" is merely another stone in the mosaic of your slanted handling of this issue. Your suggestion that one single source "raises enough questions" over an entire book has nothing to do with propagating good standards. Good standards would be not to "raise questions" diffusely, insinuating intenable accusations devoid of any substance, but would point at specific arguments relying on the specific source. Frankly, I am tired over this incessant slander campaign. If you want to debunk something, do it. But I'm afraid, you'll have to wade through the mud and do the hard work, rather than simply slinging it all across Wikipedia. --OliverH 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your remarks about my motivation are really disproportionate to my involvement here. The review in the Moscow Times calls this 'appendix' Ganser's "smoking gun." That suggests it is a key element in making the case Ganser tries to make. Since that element is a forgery, that is significant, and argues for adding the hoax tag. I don't think that is an extreme or unreasonable position. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the Page

I've protected the page until some sanity returns and editors stop blanking the article and adding unsourced nonsense about the whole of Gladio being a 'soviet hoax'. Frankly, that is silly conspiracy theorism. If editors would like to discuss specific claims in the article, then I'll unprotect. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no blanking of the article. Your decision to revert to your POV hoax version before protecting is a blatant disregard of policy and Witiquette. Please unprotect it now so that we can work on this article. --Tbeatty 00:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Monty blanked the article earlier. See above. [10] Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's one way to get your way against the wishes of 3 editors. Seems inappropriate to use your Admin powers to protect an article that you edit, and to lock your preferred edit. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask a neutral Admin to protect the article? Morton Devonshire^Yo 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm far from happy with the current article and I've never added or edited the article much. There is no excuse for blanking the article or adding nonsense to the lead. This borders on vandalism and trolling and has to stop.

The mature thing for you to do is to argue specific points that you see in error in the article. I have protected the article until that happens. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The mature thing to do is to unblock the page so we can edit and improve it as we do to every other article in Wikipedia.--Tbeatty 04:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, please subject your decision to protect an article in which you hold a minority view against consensus to admin review - it's not appropriate for you to protect an article in which you disagree with consensus, leaving a version which meets your POV. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 15:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

First, protecting the page against blanking is not a minority view. Second, while I was away, another admin first unprotected the page and then a second reprotected it due to repeated edit waring. The current protect was placed by User:Steel359.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's not your protect anymore: it's still inappropriate for an admin to protect his/her preferred version of an article in which s/he is part of the dispute. Sandy (Talk) 15:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, blanking is not a correct term for the removal of poorly-sourced material per talk page consensus. I'm concerned when an admin refers to the removal of poorly sourced material by another editor as blanking, and then protects his preferred version of the article. I respectfully submit that you should reconsider your editing of this article. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 16:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case I don't agree. This isn't my preferred version and I have hardly edited this article at all ever. The only editing I can ever remember doing is adding two cites a few days ago. And the only part I have taken in this dispute is to stop some editors blanking large sections of the text and adding nonsense. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser is a Discredited and Unreliable Source

Ganser's seminal work on Gladio is without merit. Here's what the CIA said about his work:

Swiss scholar Daniele Ganser has written the first book on this subject. In it, he asserts that the CIA and MI6 were the prime movers behind the networks, unknown to “parliaments and populations” (1). He goes on to charge that the CIA in particular, with its covert action policies that are by definition terrorist in nature, used the networks for political terrorism.

After acknowledging the validity of the stay-behind networks, Ganser quickly clarifies his argument. He alleges that, since the Soviets never invaded, some GLADIO members became right-wing terrorists in Italy. In the 1970s and 1980s, using the explosives and other supplies in the prepositioned caches, they were responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks whose real purpose was to discredit the communists. Although Ganser’s sourcing is largely secondary— newspapers and the like—his argument is convincing to the extent that both things happened. What is in doubt is the relationship between the attacks and government policy. Were the caches made available officially to terrorists, and were the terrorist attacks part of Operation GLADIO? Or were they separate acts by groups whose members had been trained as part of the now defunct stay-behind networks and knew the location of some of the caches? Ganser takes the former position, charging the CIA—and to some extent MI6—with responsibility for the terrorist acts. (14)

But proof is a problem for Ganser. He complains at the outset that he was unable to find any official sources to support his charges of the CIA’s or any Western European government’s involvement with Gladio. Nevertheless, his book devotes 14 chapters to the “secret war” in various Western nations on his list. Much of the narrative is historical. The chapter on Portugal, for example, begins with background in 1926; the chapter on Spain, with the Spanish Civil War. The history of how relationships were established among Western nations after World War II is interesting and valuable, as is the survey of pubic reaction to Operation GLADIO. But Ganser fails to document his thesis that the CIA, MI6, and NATO and its friends turned GLADIO into a terrorist organization.

[11]

Ganser connected dots that weren't there. Why should we have over 35 articles in Wikipedia that assert that this baloney is true? Morton Devonshire^Yo 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The CIA can hardly be taken as the last word on a criticism of themselves. Especially when that one source is weighed against the dozens of documents released by European government investigations. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 03:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me put this in terms you can understand, Morton.[12] Mumia says he didn't do it either, yet somehow his word isn't good enough for me. The CIA position should be covered, but their say-so alone doesn't "discredit" Ganser. Moreover, Ganser isn't the only source on this. Derex 04:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but his 9/11 conspiracy crap makes him wholly unreliable as a source for anything. --Tbeatty 04:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to see is multiple independent sources for any fact in the article. Ganser may, or may not, have a bias. The CIA most certainly does. The solution is to look for verifying sourcings for factual claims by interested parties. I don't mind counting Ganser as interested, though others might. Derex 07:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cast your eyes towards the 43 references at the bottom of the article, every one is independent of Ganser. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser is a recognized academician who was awarded a Ph.D. on this very issue. The "crap" is comments such as those of Tbeatty and Morton Devonshire who believe that just because a government tells them something is baloney, it actually is. This is unauthorized assumption of authority. As long as neither of you has an advanced degree in history, stop assessing research you have no way on earth to assess. Your say-so doesn't make anyone unreliable except for yourself. Get a life. Just because he doesn't cheer your idols as blindly as you march in rank and file doesn't make him unreliable, neither does your wishful thinking. You'll have to come up with something more solid. Ganser is neither discredited nor unreliable. YOU, however, ARE discredited for removing peer-reviewed information to replace it with jingoist drivel and propaganda material. --OliverH 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Addition: Ganser is so "unreliable" and "discredited" that he has been invited to speak at conferences of NATO, the OSCE and the ICRC. All also discredited and unreliable organisations, right? --OliverH 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Popping over from WP:RS where this issue was raised. From what I gather, Ganser must be considered a reliable source - his work was peer reviewed and published by an academic institution. That does not mean that his work is "accurate" or "true". It certainly is controvercial. Thus, I feel citation to his work should be allowed, but it should be couched in terms of an "oppinion" and attributed. In other words, it should be phrased as: According to Ganser, "blah blah blah"(cite to where Ganser says this). In other words, this is really a NPOV issue. Blueboar 20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar, as usual -- the fact that Ganser is sloppy or even wrong probably isn't enough to kick him out of the reliable source category -- attribute his views and present the opposing criticism, but present them both. TheronJ 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Substantial rewrite

Per the comment on the ANI board. This and this should be the factual basis of the article as it is stipulated by all sides. Conspiracy theories such as those proposed by Ganser should be relegated to a section called "Conspiracy theories" as should the rebuttals by CIA/State Department. Another section on the forgeries should also be included. Please unlock the article so we can make these edits. Tbeatty 06:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, so the only allowed basis for this article is the CIA's own view? No other sources allowed as reliable? That doesn't seem entirely satisfactory to me, particularly when there are many independent references, including scholarly ones. Note that I've listed quite a few additional sources, beyond the several presently mentioned, above at #What Wikipedia Requires. Not that the article is in great shape, but I doubt we'd restrict an article on a KGB operation to the KGB public statements on the matter. Derex 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, only undisputed facts should be the basis. But stipulating as fact some of the conspiracy stuff is equally disingenuous. There is plenty of stuff on Gladio. But the stuff about Gladio being behind terrorism is not nearly as scholarly or sourced. Particularly the items that rely solely on theories espoused by Ganser. The conspiracy and disputed stuff has it's place but the article should focus on the undisputed facts that 1) gladio existed and 2) it's mission was supply a "leave behind" force for insurgent operations in the event of a sovet invasion. --Tbeatty 07:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are fundamentally misinterpreting Wikipedia policy there. It is not our job to determine what the facts are, disputed or otherwise. Indeed few people here have the expertise to do so. Rather, we report what people say is true. That is the essence of NPOV. To present the CIA account as fact, and relegate the rest to "conspiracy theory" would be a rather gross violation of NPOV policy. Particularly so, since I have produced several citations to scholarly work that do take note of violence issues.

As to Ganser, you call him unreliable because he does not state with certainty there was no 9/11 conspiracy. From what I read, granted in one article, he thinks 9/11 is worth investigating, and he is doing so, but has not reached a conclusion. If you could provide me with some substantive factual assertion he's made that is demonstrably false, then I'll concede he has no reliability. Until then, you'll need to base such an argument on independent reviews of his book, of which there are a great many. Derex 08:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy is undue weight and other policies regarding reliable sources and npov. As for Ganser, the burden of reliability is on the editor trying to substantiate the claim. Ganser's view is so far in the minority as to not be used as a reliable, undisputed source. Including his views in the opening paragraph violates numerouse policies and goals of the project. His views have a place in the article, just not as the mainstream, undisputed factual account of events. This article currently weaves undisputed fact with pure speculation and doesn't point it out to the reader which is which. --Tbeatty 08:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Government statements don't prove anyone to be "so far in the minority as to not be used as a reliable source". Quite the contrary, it is the government source that's unreliable, since it's the accused claiming "I didn't do it". I am all for citing Ganser in a qualified fashion. What you are suggesting, however, is turning WP into the US government press office. --OliverH 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, why don't you start a temp page version of the article and show us what you propose. I will be easier to understand what you're getting at if we can see what you have in mind for the article. Operation_Gladio/tbeatty_proposal. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

More over interpretion of reliable sources: Yes, it is up to editors to come to consensus on a case by case basis as to whether a marginal source rises to the level Wiki requires. Derex seems to think it's black and white: conspiracy theories not supported by reliable sources must be evaluated on a case by case basis. I agree with Morton and Tbeatty. Sandy (Talk) 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• I say split the difference; start with the undisputed material, then have a section about the dispute, but don't prejudge the dispute by labelling one side "conspiracy theories" unless there is a clear academic weight of authority to that effect. TheronJ 15:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What's mainstream?

Hiding Western Terror, Edward S. Herman, The Nation (June 1991), p. 21

While investigating a 1972 terrorist incident in which three policemen were killed by the neo-fascist Vincenzo Vinciguerra, Italian magistrate Felice Casson discovered the explosives used in the attack came from one of 139 secret weapons depots of a secret army organized under the code name Operation Gladio. Casson found upon further inquiry that

Gladio was a covert, illegal but parallel structure of authority, linked to a foreign intelligence agency (the CIA), the Mafia, the right wing masonic lodge P-2, and Italian intelligence.

Both the President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, and Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, had been involved in the Gladio organization and coverup...

Investigating Magistrate Casson and many others regarded the agreement with the CIA and secret funding of the covert Gladio forces as a blatant violation of the Italian constitution and surrender of national sovereignty

The CIA and Pentagon at the time virtually organized and ran the Italian secret services, and leading

---

Gladio/La sentenza di Casson, in L'Espresso (27 October 1991), pp. 20-23 - Gladio is recognized as a "para-legal" organization with "the license to kill."

---

The Economist 15 Dec 1990

"The secret-service committee of parliament is chaired by Mr Mario Segni, whose father Antonio Segni had a stroke in 1964 and gave up the presidency amid reports that certain senior policemen were plotting a right-wing coup. Some committee members suspect that the plotters may have exploited the secret Gladio network."

---

United States - Turkish intelligence liason since World War II Gunter, Michael M. Journal of Intelligence History 2003 3(1): 33-46.

"Surreptitious links such as Gladio or stay-behind organizations might have had unintended consequences involving domestic Turkish politics, Mehmet Ali Agca's attempt to assassinate the pope, the Kurds, and the Susurluk scandal in 1996."

---

The mobilization of the internal cold war in Italy Cook, Bernard. History of European Ideas [Great Britain] 1994 19(1-3): 115-120. (An Elsevier journal)

Note: I'd recommend this article to anyone who as university electronic access, it's exactly on point and well-referenced. And, it's a peer-reviewed journal by a major academic publishing house.

"The Venetian police magistrate, Felice Casson, who uncovered the secret network and others have raised questions about its possible connection with some of the unsolved acts of terrorism which afflicted Italy between 1969 and 1984. Bettino Craxi, who did not learn of the existence of Gladio until a year after he became premier in 1983, has asked ‘Did it turn away from its original aims of national defence? Were members of it linked to the terrorist destruction?‘. His concerns were echoed by the Republican leader Giorgio La Malfa, who asked ‘Could there be a connection between this structure and the tension, the killings, the deaths, the wounds inflicted on Italian life in the 1960s and 1970s until the beginning of the 1980s?‘."

"Angelo Sanza, who served as an assistant to Premier Ciraico De Mita, characterised Gladio as ‘, . . a NATO emergency structure. . . [for] halting a slide to the Left’. This would be consistent with American involvement in Italy, which went beyond cooperation against a possible external attack. [William] Colby said that money was regularly given to the Christian Democrats to see that Italy did not ‘. . . fall into Communist hands’."

"The ‘strategy of tension’, the use of disorder or the generation of disorder to undermine the Left, did not die with the miscarriage of De Lorenzo’s plans. It was, apparently, at work in numerous outrages from 1968 through the early eighties. The most notorious of these were the 1969 explosion at the Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura on Milan’s Piazza Fontana, which killed 16 and wounded 88, and the 1980 explosion in the Bologna railway station which killed 85. The intent was apparently to defame the Left and to sow panic."

"The magistrate Casson stumbled onto Gladio while investigating a 1972 act of terrorism at Peteano in Friouli. Three carabinieri, alerted by an anonymous call, had been inspecting an apparently abandoned automobile, When one of them touched the hood, the car exploded killing ail three. During his investigation, Casson learned that Admiral Fulvio Martini, the head of Military Intelligence (SISMI), had subsequently gone to the area to recover a stock of explosives. Casson asked Andreotti for authorisation to inspect some documents at Fort Braschi, seat of SISMI. When permission came eight months later, he discovered a list of Gladiators and questioned 20 of them."

"The disclosure of Gladio adds a whole new dimension to the understanding of the mentality and actions spawned by the Cold War. The willingness to use random violence to achieve a political end is clearly not ideology specific."

I've checked the article, but there is nothing concrete in it. The fact that this author starts his article with the US propaganda campaign in the 1948 Italian elections without even mentioning the likewise actions from Moscow is enough to raise a few eyebrows. Intangible 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Only for jingoists. Look, you can foam and babble as much as you want, it takes more than slander to shake the credibility of a peer-reviewed academic article. The fact that it isn't written to conform with your ideas is not a bug, it's a feature. --OliverH 21:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Associated Press (November 17, 1990):"Colby said he did not have anything to do with setting up the Gladio network in Italy, although he was posted by the CIA to Rome in 1953...His task there, Colby recounted in his book, was to funnel several million dollars and U.S. expertise to strengthen the centrist political parties against the growing influence of the Italian Communist Party...Moscow was giving the Italian Communists some $50 million a year, he said, and "it was unthinkable" the United States would let Italy fall under Soviet control."

Right, jingoism. Intangible 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I can keep going, but you get the point. These are out of the references I listed above. Derex 09:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read what you posted? Masonic lodges? certain senior policemen were plotting a right-wing coup. Some committee members suspect that the plotters may have exploited the secret Gladio network? There's more holes in everything posted and it's pure speculation. It has it's place in Gladio lore but certainly not as fact or the mainstream description. I'd also point out that the counter to this is that the Italian terrorist acts were committed by ultra-leftists supported by the Soviet Union. Again, it has it's place, just not as the factual, summary report of what Gladio was. New World Order stuff about Masons and possible coups and plots. let me put it in a way you'll understand. We have a sepearate section for the SBVT accusations against Kerry. If I rewrote the Kerry article to intermingle facts with these accusations, I could easily find plenty of sources that repeat the allegations. If I repeated the facts about Kerry's life with the accusations in the summary sections, that would be a disservice to the reader. That's what has happened in Gladio. This article is a leftist conspiracy version of history. There is no evidence that Gladio was involved in the internal politics of any member state. Certainly there are people willing to make the accusation. --Tbeatty 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that Gladio was involved in the internal politics of any member state." Italian, Belgian and European Parliamentary investigations specifically found that there was. Or perhaps you imagine that these investigators were part of your Soviet conspiracy theory. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That certainly deserver mention. Just not as absolute fact in the intro and as absolute fact in any section. It's disputed and a large, substantial view is that Operation Gladio was not involved in internal politics. --Tbeatty 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So, to your mind, three independent government investigations are outweighted by an unsigned webpage saying "we didn't do it"? Remember that that webpage provides no evidence to counter the mountain of evidence turned up by the parliamentary investigations. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I just yet to have seen the conclusion of the governments that implicate Gladio itself except in "analyses" of leftist conspiracy articles. Guilt by association doesn't cut it. Your logic is akin to "Stalin was a Communist, therefore all communists are murderous thugs." Gladio existed. Gladio was run by the governments of these countries and NATO. Your logic says therefore, any act with a tenuous tie to Gladio implies that the whole operation was subversive. Here's an example of your logic, a few years ago, a crazy person stole a tank from the National Guard armory. He drove around San Diego for hours destroying cars and other vehicles. Nobody made the leap that the National Guard attacked San Diego. Yet you are willing to make this kind of leap in logic by including the italian bombing in the opening article. Further, there is plenty of evidence that this was a PR battle between left and right wing extremist groups. nationalists vs. communists. Leftists trying to tie right wing (or even left wing) terrorist acts to Western intelligence agencies is not far-fetched and is pretty common. But we don't have to be suckered into believing them or publishing their POV propaganda as fact in Wikipedia articles. Tbeatty 16:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Let's not check our brains at the door of Wikipedia. Morton Devonshire^Yo 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Monty, why do you think that addressing Tbeatty by name is a Personal Attack? [13] Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The title focused on the editor, not the edit. Oh, it's "Morty" not "Monty" by the way. Curious -- why is propagation of the Gladio conspiracy theory so important to you? Morton Devonshire^Yo 17:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As a European, I'm interested in European history. Interesting how I'm the only Non-American here. Last week I was shouted down for editing articles related to the US in a way that the US editors disagreed. They said I shouldn't edit US topics because I'm not an American. Of course, you and your friends are very welcome to edit here. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me check with my European wife and children....Nope, it's not because your European. In fact, it has nothing to do with you at all. It has to do with the article being a leftist propaganda piece that is not based in reality. All we want to do is seperate the facts from the propaganda. Both can be in the article but both cannot be interwoven as a menagerie of half-truths and outright lies. --Tbeatty 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you lead by example and stop the half-truths and lies yourself. Just because Ganser said something in a totally different context that pisses you off doesn't make all of his work unreliable. Slander against sources is definitely not "separating facts from the propaganda" and doesn't lend credibility to the claim that that's what you want to do. --OliverH 21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ganser for one doesn't say that all Gladio stay-behinds were involved in terrorism. He has chapters on the Denmark, Norwegian and Dutch Gladios which point out that they were never involved in any thing. However, he also presents the evidence of the Italian and Belgian commissions which discovered vast amounts of evidence that Gladio in their countries was involved in terrorism. Ganser even quotes Gladio members in other states chiding the Belgian and Italian gladios going too far.

I'm quite happy for the article to be edited and for specific points to be discussed. But to claim that Gladio didn't exist or that it was never involved in any terrorism is not supported by the facts. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked the report of the Belgian Senate Commission that looked into Gladio, and there is nothing in the conclusion section of that report that says Gladio was involved in terrorist acts in Belgium. You can download the report (in Dutch/French) here [14] (28.2MB) Intangible 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a straw man argument. Morton Devonshire^Yo 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser is not a reliable source [15]. Gladio DID exist. Whether it was involved in terrorism is not clear and shouldn't be stipulated as fact. It is opinion. Also, your strawman argument that discrediiting Ganser is the same as discrediting Einstein's Theory of Relativity has the same flaw as your logic linking Gladio to terrorism. --Tbeatty 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm happy to discuss specific changes to the article. These general sweeping statement on what the article as a whole says or doesn't say are not helpful. Point me to a specific paragraph or claim which isn't supported. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We've just discussed it. I don't need to submit my edits for your approval. The opening paragraph is not supported and shouldn't mention anything about the italian bombing. --Tbeatty 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read from Ganser, the statements he makes that seem to be founded are readily available from other secondary sources; the statement he makes that seem to be unfounded are never supported by concrete evidence. The only thing Ganser is good at is rehashing secondary sources, and then add some conspiricist notions and title just so he can make money off the consp. crowd. Intangible 20:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Hoax tag

While there is no doubt that Gladio existed in some form, it certainly did not exist in the form presented on this page. What is presented here is a hoax tacked on to a small amount of factual data. That there is some amount of underlying truth is the only reason to not nominate this page for deletion. However, until some sources are presented that are both reliable and verifiable, the tag stays. Removal of the tag without providing sources amounts to vandalism.

As per Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, talking about the origin of the term “Original reseach”:

The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.

The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we _can_ do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide.

The exact same principle will hold true for history, though I suppose the application will in some cases be a bit different and more subtle.[16]

The way to have the tag removed is to cite sources that are both reliable and verifiable. As always the burden is on the article author to prove the claims and sources used in the article, and NOT upon the editor(s) objecting to the source to disprove it.

When citing sources please cit the source in this manner:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.

Don’t simply say: They are in the book/web site/data bank/newspaper/whaterever –someplace. Vague claims such as “the mountain of evidence” and “There are plenty of legitimate, reliable sources here.” are not helpful. Cite the true location as shown above. Do that and the Hoax tag can come off.

And per WP:V Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.

Also last time I checked calling an editor an “idiot” in an edit summary when they fail to take you POV is not exactly helpful either. Brimba 17:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Brimba, you seem to be operating under the illusion that the article is not well referenced. What is wrong with the 43 references, 21 bibliography and 20-odd external links presented? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was/am primarily concerned with “Statewatch” which you are correct, is not currently in the protected version, but certainly will be again once the protection is lifted, and was being used as a dumping ground for any unsourced claim within the article, i.e. “trust us, its in there”. Also we have links that say they cite the The Guardian, but when the link is hit, it actually leads to the Cambridge Clarion Group, etc. A lot of what is currently listed is cited correctly, but not everything. Brimba 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for linking archives on Clarion is that the Guardian on-line archives only go back to 1998. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New York Times archives

I did a search and found "EVOLUTION IN EUROPE; Italy Discloses Its Web Of Cold War Guerrillas" November 16, 1990. Gladio is mentioned in 5 other articles. "Gladio" was the name used in Italy. Other names were used in other NATO countries. Fred Bauder 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That article is already referenced in the article along with about 50-60 others. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As above, the question is not “Did Gladio exist?” as it most certainly did. The question is, did it exist in the form that is presented here? It most certainly did not. What is presented here as fact is a hoax built upon a small amount of truth. Brimba 23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of references which claim a link between Gladio and terrorism. For example:

• "The Gladio File: did fear of communism throw West into the arms of terrorists?", in The Guardian, 5 December 1990
• Peter Murtagh, The Rape of Greece. The King, the Colonels, and the Resistance (London, Simon & Schuster, 1994)
• US 'supported anti-left terror in Italy', The Guardian, 24 June 2000

Whether you choose to believe this or not is a question for yourself. Perhaps, you can allow wikipedia's readers to make the same choice for themselves? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but basically all articles come from the Guardian, Independent or the communist l'Humanité. You would expect that at least some other newspapers carry the same stories if they are important for the public to know, but the archives of the Washington Post, CSMonitor, WSJ, IHT, etc., are pretty much quiet. Note that only recently I changed the structure of this article [17]. Before that, it was even more hopeless, with statements like "Propaganda Due (aka P2), a freemason organization, whose existence was discovered in 1981, was closely linked to Gladio." being perpetrated as fact in this article. Intangible 23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you write an letter to the Washington Post and ask them? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No need, they did cover it.

• "Everybody in Italy Wants Change -Talk Is of Revolution, But Bombings Raise Question: At What Price?" Washington Post 1990,[18]

From that article: "By official accounts, Gladio members secretly fought internal subversion for decades"

• "CIA Organized Secret Army in Western Europe Paramilitary Force Created To Resist Soviet Occupation", Washington Post, 1990, [19]

Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really concrete qua terrorist responsibilities or involvement of NATO or CIA. Note that a former edition of this article was quite explicit in mentioning this, without any sources [20]. It's that there is now at least some determinancy and interest to cleanup the article, separating fact and fiction. Intangible 00:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read through the articles, studies, reports and investigations you can see doubt and uncertainty. That Gladio was connected to Nato, the CIA and MI6 is beyond question. The CIA and MI6 recruited right wing extremists for gladio for the very practical and logical reason that they could be sure such people were not communists. Also beyond question is that right-wing terror groups were involved in terrorism. Further, it is certain that at least some individuals in those terror groups were also involved in Gladio, that they were trained by Gladio, and that they used some of the Gladio weapon stockpiles to which they had access, in their terrorist attacks. What is in doubt, and there is little or no evidence for this, is whether the CIA and MI6 actually ordered these attacks, or whether this terrorism was simply an unintentional byproduct of giving bombs to crazy fascists. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See User:Derex/Gladio. Here's some with "Gladio" in lead paragraph. Skipped most of the Guardian ones, of which there are dozens. Couple NYTimes in there I think. Derex 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, in Bauder's opinion, Ganser is not reliable because of involvement with 9/11 scholars for truth. However, he doesn't appear to be a member of that group.[21] What exactly has Ganser said or done about 9/11 that makes him unreliable? I've seen a lot of allusions, but I've missed the substance. Derex 02:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. 'Twas a bunch of baloney then? Derex 04:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What he writes is a bunch of baloney. Just use common sense and you will see it. --Tbeatty 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Link? I'm not in a trusting mood, considering. I also don't trust the common sense or baloney detection capabilities of those with radically different views than mine ... otherwise, I'd have different views. Derex 05:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt of a review
Daniele Ganser. NATO’s Secret Armies:Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. London: Frank Cass, 2005. 315 pp, ISBN 0714685003, £22.99

<extended excerpt deleted, from someone who apparently does not understand copyright law very well, available by clicking link>

Thanks, was that so hard now? To actually back up a claim instead of blustering about 9/11 this and that without presenting any evidence. This is exactly what I asked for days ago, and you refused on some strange principle to provide. [22] [23] Derex 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think it's copyrighted? Wikipedia is a massive work with no copyright. Lots of academic journals forego copyright in order to promote scholarly research. All they want is attribution. I don't pretend to be an expert on copyright law as you apparently are. Please provide the evidence that this particular review is copyrighted and that excerpting it isn't fair use. And no one "refused your request" either. The proof should be on the editor making the claim that this person is a reliable source. He is not. He has demonstrated that he is not in many sources as Bauder pointed out. Yet your admitted lack of knowledge didn't stop you from reverting edits. You've been reverting without contribution for days now without doing any research. I beleive you even said he wasn't associated with 9/11 conspiracy theories yet he writes about them in his book about Gladio (hmm, might this be to get the conspiracy nuts to buy his book?). Please stop disrupting wikipedia and use common sense. --Tbeatty 06:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First the review author is only a student. "Peer Henrik Hansen, a doctoral scholar at Roskilde University, Denmark"; so reliability of that is actually questionable. Book reviews are generally not themselves peer-reviewed, I know, I've done some. Second, you are entirely mistaken about copyright. Wikipedia is copyrighted. I think that says quite enough about your knowledge of copyright. Third, almost no scholarly journals forgo copyright. PLOS is about all I know of, and that's a very recent phenomenon. In fact _I_ have to sign away my copyright to every journal I've ever published in. I can't even post reprints of my own articles on my own web page. Fourth, I've reverted a single contribution, and that was based on an exact quote from the Economist, hardly an unreliable source. It had zero to do with Ganser, and was not sourced to him. Fifth, I saw claims that Ganser was a member of 9/11 scholars for truth. I checked it out. It was false. It was also falsely included in the 9/11 scholars page. So, don't preach to me about checking stuff out. Get your facts straight, bub. Derex 06:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Get off the high horse. Wikipedia is licensed under its "copyleft" program. You can reproduece all of it with the appropriate attribution, which is all I've said about this website. It's part of GFDL. Gnu and EFF is VERY anti-copyright (and against private intellectual property in general). I can post ALL of wikipedia on my web page if I so choose and in fact many people do. Your knowledge of the project you appear to be contributing to is apparently limited as is your knowledge about this subject. As for this article, it's reviewed by a number of editors in the journal that would appear to meet the same review standards that as peer reviewed journals. Books themselves are generally not peer reviewed either but that didn't seem to bother you about the Ganser book. And the journals that I write for allow me to copy as desired for my use or the use of my employer with appropriate attribution to the publication. The only requirement is that it be original for the journal (i.e. not previsously published) and that the copyright owner and journal be acknowledged. These are very well known engineering journals so I am surprised that their copyright is so different from yours. --Tbeatty 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That reviewer doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'conspiracy'! Leaving aside legitimacy for a moment (as Operation Gladio was probably a necessary defense against invasion, as Ganser concludes) the fact that Gladio was secret and that leaders secretly decided together to form it makes it a conspiracy by definition. Its not a value judgment, just a fact. Gladio was also illegal by definition (forming and training secret paramilitary organizations is illegal under anti-terrorism laws, even if they never do anything). That again makes Gladio a conspiracy by definition. And this is true even if Gladio never killed anybody. Its existence and training form a (technically) illegal conspiracy under the law. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a lot of OR to me. The fact that no one has been charged with a crime after almost 50 years of knowledge seems to speak volumes about it's legality.

You mean, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, Stefano Delle Chiaie, Licio Gelli, etc., were found innocent by Italian justice? You mean Italian justice didn't find links between them and SISMI, and between them, SISMI and Propaganda Due (led by Gelli) and Gladio? Funny how a dozen of newsarticles dating from 1990 still disturb so much people here 16 years after the discovery of Gladio. Hey, folks, the Cold War is over! Get over with it! Truth won't kill anyone anymore... Tazmaniacs 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not really up on the details just the broader idea so maybe you can help me with this. Did Italian Justices find that Vincenzo Stefano and Licio were working for Gladio when the commited the crimes they were found guilty of? What were they charged and found guilty of? Did the links mean Gladio was responcible or that there military records date back to Gladio? Thanks just trying to understand the overall idea more. --NuclearZer0 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser & 9/11 Scholars

I did some research and I am giving it with partial opinion added. The original transcript of the 9/11 Scholars announcement from PRWeb stated Ganser as a member, however it was later updated, if you look at it now not from cache, to have Ganser removed. What happened in that time or if it was simply a mistake I do not know.

• Old thanks to google cache: [24] [25]

• Version on PRWeb site: [26]PDF

Hope that helps clarify the situation a little. --NuclearZer0 14:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup - Archive.org [27] shows the page was updated on Feb 4th 9th and 17th, where as the original PR release came out in January or earlier. --NuclearZer0 14:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganser mentions 9/11 conspiracies in his Gladio book (how 9/11 is related to Gladio is left as an excercise for the reader). It would be easy to believe he is part of that particular movement. He is certainly not immune from taking their money or promoting their left-wing cause. --Tbeatty 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed he does mention 9/11. On page 248. You seem to be suggesting that his mentioning of the event is part of a massive left wing conspiracy. Are all authors who mention 9/11 once in a book of 300 pages part of this conspiracy, or just the ones you disagree with? I'd also like to know why you think lefties have money! All the radical lefties I've ever met tend to be broke students. I've never met any rich ones.

Also, why do you say that people who question 9/11 are by definition lefties? Alex Jones, the leader of the movement, is s right-wing gun-toten' republican Texan. It doesn't seem to be a left-right issue to me.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to use common sense and ask yourself why would someone writing a book on Gladio from a left-wing point of view, mention 9/11 at all. They are completely unrelated. The idea is that it increased his exposure by 10x (and got him on the radical nutball shows like Alex Jones). As an aside, I see you made the astute observation that left-wing radicalism leaves everyone poor. I guess Ganser saw an opportunity to take money from poor, radical left-wing students and said 'Me too.' To answer your question, people who question 9/11 are not necessarily leftists. However, the overwhelming majority of people who question 9/11 are leftists. Most of the leftists questioning it see the motivation as a neo-con agenda to take over the world (or at least the middle east). The fact that they attribute 9/11 to right wing politics kind of tells you where their sympathies are. --Tbeatty 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats daft. First - did Ganser write his book from 'a left wing point of view'? What does that even mean?

Second, exactly what money has Ganser made from this? The book ranks 79,000 on Amazon - not exactly a blockbuster. It is his PhD thesis - perhaps thats what he was getting out of it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 00:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

All his conclusions are leftist interpretations of facts. All of which are highly questionable (i.e. wrong). His most glaring error is citing as fact the Soviet forgery of the army manual. East vs. West in the cold war was Left vs. Right in case you missed it. It's common sense interpretation that he is a leftist and that this book is a leftist commentary on a Western cold war program. Look at his first reference article where the article tries to tie Gladio to "right-wing terrorism." Please. --Tbeatty 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but apart of CIA's word that the FM Manual was a forgery, have you got any other proof for that claim? It may well be a "forgery", but, if we rely on today's public knowledge, the fact is that we only know that the CIA claim it is a "forgery". Hardly an impartial source on the matter. Now, since you're talking about Ganser and judging him, maybe you could read his book? In it, as someone pointed out in February 2006 on this talk page, Ganser replied in advance to this denial from US State Dept. See here for his explanation of the origins of the FM Manual (surprisingly, the disclosal of this "forgery" went along with some assassinations). Tazmaniacs 14:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gladio was by definition anti-communist and thus by definition right wing.

Part of my family come from Russia and suffered deportation to siberian camps, so I'm not exactly pro-soviet. But calling the cold war a fight between good and evil is simplistic (i.e. wrong). Did the west do no wrong to your mind? Or did the ends justify the means?

Also, calling the west non-left is also wrong. Proud NATO member Norway was and is more socialist than Cuba. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say it was good vs. evil? --Tbeatty 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, please..., stop talking about "common sense"!!! I observe this discussion and see "common sense" phrase for n-th time. Who do you, people, think you are to judge what is "common sense", huh? (especialy, in matters that ordinary folks don't have much look onto)

I say just one thing: It is a common sense to me, having read a lot, that 9/11 official account, i.e. investigation, commission, NIST report, are worth not much more than zero. Think what you want of me, of 9/11, but stop missusing the phrase! rant-over SalvNaut 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Gladio.jpg

Do we have any verification that this image is legitimate? Brimba 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No clue but the licensing notice is wrong, is not of "... an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos" If anythnig it would be a government insignia which is fair use if from the US, however its alleged that NATO ran this group, so not sure how that works. --NuclearZer0 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the question is: Is this logo legitimately part of Gladio, or is it something someone unrelated to Gladio drew up? Currently the summery states “Logo of Italian branch of Gladio.” Is it? Brimba 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Article lacks concentration

It seems the article needs to focus on Gladio specifically. Gladio was only the Italian controlled operation and as such should focus on the Italian stay behind network, why does it say Gladio covered other european nations if it was in fact only Italys program? --NuclearZer0 13:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gladio is the colloquial name for NATO's stay-behind organizations. Parliamentary investigations on these clandestine paramilitary groups were done in Italy, Belgium & Switzerland as the article says, and these paramilitary groups are known to have existed in almost all European countries (including neutrals). We are dealing above with a content dispute; your question is on form (Intangible solved this some times ago concerning the Belgian section, which was growing quite big, by making Belgian stay-behind network article: however, this solution is adopted as spin-out). Whichever solution you choose to support, a general articles on stay-behind groups must exist, since they were all directed by NATO, although Italy is the only place where juridic investigations have proven links to false flag bombings such as the 1980 Bologna railway bombing. Violence is suspected in a few other countries (Belgium, Turkey...) and sources are given for attribution. But some here would want us to believe only the CIA. Well, why didn't they let Ganser & others access their files, if they are so sure of having nothing to do with the strategy of tension supported in Italy and other violent acts during the "years of lead"? Please also note that, among others sources (including the European Parliament resolution), we also have an Italian Parliamentary report which directly connects the USA to the strategy of tension (1980 Bologna bombing, etc.) in Italy. Now, if Italian deputies, magistrates, etc., only lie; if a Swiss historian lie; if three Parliamentary commissions lie; yes, we can believe the CIA's word that it never used right or left-wing terrorism. Although an official quoted in Le Monde newspaper — source given in the article — explicitly stated the contrary. In two words: there is no doubt Gladio exist (the US State Department admits it); there is no doubt it was directly involved in Italy's strategy of tension, including false flag bombings (see the various Italian investigations); what is unknown — and may be proven, to the CIA's discharge or to its charge, only by access to its archives — is what exactly happenned in other countries. Blocking historical research on this matter reasonably leads to reasonable suspicions about what/who may have been instrumentalized during the Cold War. There is one way for the CIA to prove this is a hoax: declassify!!! In Italy, victims of the Bologna bombing and of Piazza Fontana thanks the US for their "protection" against a Soviet invasion which never came (was it ever envisioned? or did Moscow remained content with the de facto state, and opposed Communist takeover which would disrupt the status quo, as it opposed it during the Spanish Civil War? Now, these are questions which Soviet archives can give an answer to...) Tazmaniacs 14:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure why you went on such a long winded post. The fact of the matter is Gladio = Italy, much like Sheepskin = Greece. I am not arguing for removal of the article, just moving of the over all content to an article title that would fit, seeing as Gladio = Italy only. --NuclearZer0 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding to above dispute. Sorry for taking your time. My point is: your demand is on form of the article, not content. If we limited the Gladio article to Gladio in Italy, then we would have to make a new main page dealing with NATO stay-behind organizations in Europe (which is currently this one). The term "Gladio" has been adopted because it is popularly known this way. Since Gladio in Italy already exists, maybe you could argue to rename this article under "NATO stay-behind organizations"? Would that solve your issue? Tazmaniacs 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think that would actually be the best possible name as well, considering its not just dealing with Italy and Gladio. This would also allow this article to actually be about Operation Gladio. --NuclearZer0 14:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not have two articles: one dealing with actual stay-behind networks, and the second dealing with all of the stay-behind conspiracy theories. Right now, there's too much fiction mixed with fact for a reader to know what is real and what is allegedly real. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One reason would be that the Belgian parliamentry comite investigating this mentioned investigating Gladio in Belgium and not investigating a NATO stay-behind network. So I take it the consensus was that Gladio wasn't a term used specifically for operations in Italy. Don't know about the countries though. 81.165.163.101 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It factually was. --NuclearZer0 11:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Belgian parliamentary report: "De benaming "Gladio" waarmee het Italiaanse netwerk wordt aangeduid, was in ons land blijkbaar onbekend. Het netwerk, zoals het in België "officieel" functioneerde, werd aangeduid met de afkortingen S.T.C./Mob. en S.D.R.A. VIII." Translation: The name "Gladio" which is used to name the Italian network, was seemingly unknown in our country. The network, as it was "officially" functioning in Belgium, was referenced to with the acronyms S.T.C./Mob and S.D.R.A. VIII." (p. 6 of the report) Intangible 11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you can compare it with the way linux is used. At the moment linux means the entire operating system while in fact, technically, linux only means the kernel. The corresponding wiki article also reflected this change in usage. When I search on www.dekamer.be (questions and answers) There are specific gladio questions, and when I search on SDRA, it is usually listed as "gladio - SDRA VIII". Not to mention the many newspapers who referenced it as gladio.81.165.163.101 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of Belgian stay-behind network mentions that "Gladio" is used as colloquial term for the network. No problems there. Intangible 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and maybe a disambiguation page for Gladio or at least a link on the 'Italian Gladio page' (don't know how else to call it). I think a lot of people will type in Gladio when in fact they meant 'nato stay-behind armies'.81.165.163.101 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

Sign below if you agree with the totally disputed tag

• Endorse totally disputed tag Morton Devonshire^Yo 03:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse totally disputed tag. I think the HOAX tag is more appropriate; however, I also think the edit war that tag would entail would be unconstructive. Brimba 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• disapprove This push to tag the article is childish and unhelpful. Point out specific problems and lets fix them. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 09:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse - this looks more and more like a walled garden of true believers citing each other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, and then some. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse , this IS a walled garden of fanatic conspiriacy theorists citing each other and whatever fantasies they can conjure up. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disapprove Gladio is real, the governments admitted they had these networks. There is some items that could use better sourcing or better people making accusations, but its not all fake and certaintly not all sources are bad ones. I would say leave the tag up, but start bringing each section up for review starting from the top, then let each editor chime in on what they see as wrong or defend what they believe is right until we either get better sources, if thats an issue, or agree on a section or a mutual position to write it from. --NuclearZer0 13:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disapprove Peer-reviewed sources from respected University. Don't like what they say? - write your own paper and try to publish it. Don't disrupt Wikipedia. SalvNaut 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disapprove per Seabhcan; long term, the article needs to have any specific difficulties solved, not have a tag on it. --Guinnog 21:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Stay-behind merge

I've suggested to merge Stay-behind into this article. See Talk:Stay-behind. Intangible 10:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be good, because then the article might actually have some factual substance to it, and not all of the black-helicopter stuff. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, you get insulted when someone uses the word childish, but on the other hand you can name a lot of european media outlets as reporting on black helicopter stuff.. hmm.. pot kettle black81.165.163.101 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well apparently the merger is off since someone removed the tag from the Stay-behind article. But Google Scholar only gives me 26 hits [28] for "stay behind network" or "stay behind operation." That is not even enough to warrant a separate article, is it? Intangible 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:The Green Fish

Hummm, I thought that SuperDeng, aka The Green Fish, aka 81.165.163.101, had a one month block imposed against him/her? Has it been lifted?

as per User talk:SuperDeng:

Blocked: One month for abuse of sockpuppets including User:The Green Fish and User:Lokqs as determined by checkuser. When this block is expired please return to contributing using one and only one account. Thank you. Thatcher131 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brimba (talk • contribs)

I didn't even notice that. I'll put some investigative request on AN/I. Intangible 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Belgian ip-range. Intangible 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I was incorrect. In the past 83.249.79.25 (RIPE Network Coordination Centre, Amsterdam) was attributed to User:SuperDeng: however, upon rereading the AN/I, I am not certain it was resolved (three of 4 where, this was one of the 4). So who is 81.165.163.101 (RIPE Network Coordination Centre, Amsterdam)? Not sure. I would wonder whether this anon is also User:SoftBulletin? Not worth pursuing. Brimba 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still that user(== the ip address provided, just to make sure). My internet provider uses dynamic IP addresses. From experience I noticed it doesn't change often the IP address of users (but sometimes it does) would it help if I would register with wikipedia to resolve this speculation, or would I still be incriminated for such things? I'm not sure where to post this, again I'm new at this, but not the concept of wikipedia. 81.165.163.101 13:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ip adress 81.165.163.101 is from Telenet, a Belgian ISP. I doubt this is an open proxy. And I am also pretty sure User:The Green Fish had a Swedish tongue. The best thing for user 81.165.163.101 to is to get a Wikipedia user name, these anonymous ip users are confusing! Intangible 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be the main-question for me (!). Suppose, I would get a wikipedia name, I really doubt with, the 9/11 paraoia which seems to permeate alll articles, it would be useless to go to a public library and reference the articles because those articles would be regarded as insignificant or black helicopter articles in the press.. I'm not against critism. But I just want to know whether it's worth my time to research those things. If it is going to get dismissed regardless, then no (!), I'm not going to waste my time researching it. I'm sure 9/11 was sensitive to Americans, this is _not_ about 9/11.. I need to check, If I were to get a user name it would be Nocturn_Azreal or any variantion on Azrael.81.165.163.101 15:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi 81.165... The answer is no. Your research will not be accepted. If anything you add is in any way objectionable to the American editors, or any one of them, they will gang up on you and bully you out of wikipedia. It doesn't matter how many references or sources you have. Wiki-reality is what the American editors say it is. If Bush says up is down and down is up, then this article will be up for deletion tomorrow (its clearly conspiracy cruft anyway) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can clearly feel your frustration, maybe I'm too new at this but when someone expresses extreme viewpoints, can't we bring in some more wikipedia editors? There are too many sources so can't this be taken up to someone who doesn't has a specific viewpoint? 81.165.163.101 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You can try, and you may win some battles. The problem is that this group of editors will wait like vultures until you or others lose interest and move on. Then they'll go to work again stripping away material that they don't want others to see. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first article I've read on wiki and it wouldn't be the last. I never claim to grasp a wikipedia article. But because I experienced so many the politicizing articles. I've always warned my "siblings" do not quote wikipedia. A lot of them take my experience for real and don't trust anything which is being said in here without further research.81.165.163.101 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. Wikipedia is generally fine for anything scientific or technical. But the politburo is too active these days. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we deal with that? I mean every single name I recognise from some other article which disputes, dispite the basis of scientific evididence, some claims, but still they get the upper hand because their goverment claims otherwise. They don't use logic but they use personal attack prove their point. Is wikipedia really that untrustworthy?81.165.163.101 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but I'm open to suggestions! Really, there are only 5-10 of these problem editors. However, they seem to have an extraordinary amount of time to devote to their trolling. We honest editors have real lives to live. If we had a solid group of about 20-30 editors willing to cover wikipedia in shifts and to shout down this POV-pushing then we could balance them (or force their employers to hire a few more goons to edit) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Lord Seabhcán of Baloney—assuming, that is, that he is not really trying to put you off joining, but just being honest about the frustrations involved in trying to build an as-far-as-it-is-possible neutral and reasonably reliable encyclopedia. But I would like to add that Black Helicopter would be a brilliant choice of username. And I would certainly encourage you to register under some name. Wikipedians (YUK) spend a lot of time reverting total garbage (PENIS RULES YOU WANKER. HELLO MOM! stuff) from anonymous users. And that makes everyone initially dubious about anonymous edits. —Ian Spackman 23:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists quoting eachother?

"General Geraldo Serraville, head of Gladio from 1971 to 1974, told a television programme that he now thought the explosion aboard the plane Argo 16 on 23 November 1973 was probably the work of gladiatori who were refusing to hand over their clandestine arms. Until then it was widely believed the sabotage was carried out by Mossad, the Israeli foreign service, in retaliation for the pro-Libyan Italian government's decision to expel, rather than try, five arabs who had tried to blow up an Israeli airliner. The Arabs had been spirited out of the country on board the Argo 16." (Charles Richards, independent, 1/12/90) I guess the head of Gladio (71-74) is also a black helicopter conspiracy nut. :) Now please proof that everything in the article and the piece of text above is quoted from conspiracy theorists who are quoting other CT.81.165.161.21 08:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Move Controversial Material to "Operation Gladio Conspiracy Theories"

Given that this article is a mish-mash of history and allegations of Operation Gladio complicity in various terrorist acts, and the fact that we already have a Stay-behind article, I make the following proposal: (1) move all of the Stay-behind material to Operation Gladio, and re-direct Stay-behind here; and (2) create a new article entitled Operation Gladio Conspiracy Theories (or something similar indicating the various assasination and terrorist conspiracy theories attached to the stay-behind network operational plans and personnel). In that way, we can confine all of the alternate theories to a single page, and keep the other page for the uncontroverted facts, much in the way that the two articles September 11, 2001 attacks and 9/11 conspiracy theories neatly separate factual events from speculation, yet complement one-another. That process seems to work well on those articles, because it gives both sides a place to talk both about the historical account and the alternate perspectives of the history, and removes much of the daily contention. This might serve to keep the peace among editors here, and it would also put third parties coming to these articles on notice that those who have written on the subject (i.e. non-Wikipedians) have different perspectives on the history of stay-behind networks. Thoughts? Morton Devonshire^Yo 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not a bad idea, except it will just lead to arguments on exactly what is disputed and what isn't. I fear that you will claim that everything that Ganser wrote, or may have written, is a conspiracy theory. I know that, despite your past arguments against Ganser's writing, that you have not read the book, and have at best a second hand knowledge of what Ganser has proven and what he hasn't. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find ways to diffuse the situation. Please offer comments with that in mind. Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you identify and discuss the specific claims in the article that you think are unsupported. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you might want to try first to find WP:RS which discredits the head of gladio in making the claim he thought Gladio was responsible for some terrorist attacks before proceeding. I never got an answer to that question.81.165.161.21 09:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea. Seems like a content fork. I don't like it on the 9/11 article either. --Guinnog 10:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As said before, please point out specific points of contention instead of globally judging the article as a "hoax" — and creating a "Operation Gladio conspiracy theories" is just like creating "Gladio hoaxes" article. What is a hoax? That stay-behind organizations existed? You seem to have accepted this, so did the US government. That Gladio is the colloquial term, as Intangible puts it, for all stay-behind NATO organizations? That Gladio in Italy has been accused, by people that mainstream media are hardly used to call "conspiracy theorists", of having been involved in the strategy of tension, which included a serie of false flag attacks? Namely, these peoples & organizations, as quoted by the article, included, non exhaustively, a European parliament resolution and a 2000 Olive Tree parliamentary report. Conspiracy? Whether you believe it is, or not, isn't very interesting for the rest of the community — the fact that the European Parliament & the Olive Tree coalition do believe in this "Gladio conspiracy" does interest us, as a fact. Wikipedia in no way has the ability to judge on the truth degree of this sort of special operations — we can only report what the press, institutions & historians have to say. Now, I've never heard of the term "Gladio conspiracy" in the newsarticle I've read on the subject which deals with this. Tazmaniacs 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)