Jump to content

Talk:Operation Gladio/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Resources for expansion

I removed the following list of external links, as they were just cluttering the article. Feel free to incorporate the ones that you deem reliable. --Adoniscik(t, c) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • 1958-1990: Operation Gladio, Italy on libcom.org
  • The Real History of Gladio (in Italian)
  • 2000 Interview with Vincenzo Vinciguerra (in Italian)
  • "L'effet Gladio". L'Humanité. 1990-11-29. (in French)/(in English) (Google translation available)
  • "Affaire Battisti: retour sur les années de plomb" (in French). Politis. 2004-05-13.
  • forum with Fred Vargas (in French)
  • "La irresistible ascension de Silvio Berlusconi". Rebelion.org. September 29, 2005. (in Spanish)
  • "The Pentagon's 'NATO option'". Common Dreams. February 10, 2005.
  • "Global Eye - Sword play". Moscow Times. February 18, 2005.
  • "Enquête sur la France templière". Le Point. January 9, 1999. (about Gladio, the Order of the Solar Temple, and the Grande Loge Nationale de France (GLNF, a masonic lodge) allegedly linked with the French SDECE) (in French)

Gladio emblem

'Silendo libertatem servo' means 'I preserve freedom by remaining silent' Pamour (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm getting tired of people quarreling over the meaning of this sentence. Doesn't anyone have a Latin dictionary that the we can cite to end this debate? --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL A Latin Dictionary will only tell you that Silendo, is Silence, libertatem is Liberty, Servo is Serve. The endings of the words give the little words of english, the O of Silendo translates as I Silence. You wont get the kind of sentance you expect as Latin is way different to modern English. Also watch out for exceptions to the rules. Did you not do Latin at school plebe (joke) ? Evadinggrid (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Our own wiktionary lists "preserve" as the tertiary meaning. --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You can not solve this by a dictionary alone.
Every verb in Latin has a pronoun enclosed. Google - "amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant". Thats 6 different ways of spelling "ama" meaning "to love". Each different spelling is a different pronoun and the first three are singular, and the last 3 are plural.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Körner

in the article it says "Sentenced to death, they were then pardoned under mysterious circumstances by Chancellor Körner (1951-1957)."

I dont know who pardoned them, but Körner never was Chancellor. (and as President (which he was in that time) I doubt that he had the rights to do so, but I dont know) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dercatenaccio (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed Chancellor to President, which Körner actually was, as you rightly pointed out. However, you are wrong about the right of pardoning. Austrian law grants pardoning rights to the President, but not to the Chancellor. 84.112.183.24 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Status of Ganser's book?

Hi. I'd like to get started editing here, but from reading the talk page, the status of Ganser's work as a source is unclear. Has there been any more discussion or decision on it? Are we just specifically citing information from him? Bartleby (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ganser is already heavily cited. In the interests of balance, I would advise you to look elsewhere. --Adoniscik(t, c) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ganser is a joke researcher. Notyourordinarycat (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
How reliable can Ganser be considered? In Greece, it is widely believed that, as Ganser writes in his book, US president Lyndon Johnson told Greek ambassador Alexandros Matsas to go get fucked, along with the greek government, because they didn't budge to a US-designed partition plan for Cyprus.Elp gr (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ganser is a good researcher. Do your research, and you can find that out easily by yourself. He isn't God, but he doesn't claim so neither, he just compiled publicly available information into a collection and published it as a book - that's actually what history-research is about. So, no matter how "Notyourordinarycat" you are, your comment is definitely quite ordinary. To everybody else: read for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. 92.225.29.78 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Western Europe

Eurasian might be better, as Greece and Turkey were included. The former is in Southern European and the bulk of the latter is in Asia.

92.251.255.18 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Time Period by country

For some countries categories like "20th century in the United Kingdom" or "Cold War in the United Kingdom" would be better than "Contemporary history of the United Kingdom" Hugo999 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

"Özel Harp Dairesi" = "Seferberlik Tetkik Kurulu" Böri (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In turkey section of the article, counterguerilla considered military branch and ergenekon considered civilian branch of turkish "gladio". this statement stemmed from superficial knowledge on subject. "counterguerilla warfare" is a technical term and during tortures of ziverbey mansion, some torturers refered themselves as counterguerillas. so due to victims' accounts, an unknown organization wrongly named as counterguerila in turkish public and press. ergenekon wasn't a civilian branch. turkish general memduh unluturk claimed he was part of this organization which consist both civilians and military personnel.

turkey's ergenekon case's credibility is controversial. official accusations like ergenekon organisation being part of the super secret society of agharta, entered documents.

interesting part is, current turkish government came from islamic fundementalist movement. this movement supported by nato in order to using religion to fight communism during cold war. nato's green belt strategy requires surrounding soviets from south with islamic regimes. according to witnesses, 6 members of current turkish cabinet involved bloody 1969 attacks to anti-nato demonstrators.

it seems cold war era's secret nato military organizations replaced by civilian versions which cultivated during the cold war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.95.81 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere

Ireland is one of the few European countries not mentioned. Was the organisation ever active there ? And what of West Berlin (as distinct from West Germany proper) 86.112.94.153 (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

Added info on Cyprus but I'm not sure where to place it in the article. Cyprus was not a NATO country but the Gladio units where modelled on Greek equivalents and under the control of officers from Greece. Mavros (talk)

The NAME Gladio

Me thinks that the name needs more explanation. Here is a really good one.

What was the inspiration for the name Gladio? It was named after a small stabbing knife used by the gladiators; this knife would produce a superficial wound with a lot of blood. It would not finish off the opponent quickly, and thus finish the contest, but it would terrify and prolong the entertainment for the crowds. A spymaster explains it to Dark: “They are not interested in killing many innocent people -- but they want to terrify many people, with a superficial but spectacularly bloody wound.” source 203.184.41.52 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion with American style militia

Gladio is (was) an official military organisation. It was not an American-style rightwing paramilitary group. The article implies that it was a political group rather than a military one. It also mixes fact with fiction, and makes unsourced and improbably suggestions - such as the allegation that the British branch was recruited from fascists. This entire article reads like a left-wing conspiracy theorists wet dream.. It should be completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC) 

You read like a generic, automaton Wikipedia hack. You should be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.212 (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

in Syria?

Böri (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

also in Iran? and in Iraq? Böri (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
in Serbia? in Armenia? Böri (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Column 88

Seems very unlikely. Can anyone throw any further light ? 212.121.210.45 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The emblem and its enscription translation

The current description of the picture at the top of the article reads "By being silent I preserve freedom". The three latin words Silendo Libertatum Servo translated directly render "Silence Liberty Servant" which could be a completely different context, one that is completely contradictory to the context implied by the current translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.38.188 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Latin word for silence is silentium, not silendo. The word silentio is a verb meaning to keep silent. This form is silendo, the gerund, meaning keeping silent.
Servo is a simple verb, first person singular: I preserve, serve, guard, watch over, keep, protect, observe, save reserve.
Libertas == freedom. Libero= to set free. Libertatus=one who has been set free, i.e., the free man.
In maintaining silence I protect the free (man). 68.162.221.100 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Segment on the conspiracy theories

There are a lot of right wing people in America who believe in the NWO, Illuminati etc etc, and a part of that is operation gladio... If someone has more knowledge on this, they should include a small section at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.82.19 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference #4[1], a title by Danielle Ganser, is a dead link (the link to the actual article, not the Journal website). The work is listed on the article index web page for The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy's "Democratization in the 20th Centruey Volume VI, Number 1," Democratization in the 20th Century Volume VI, Number 1, however, it is by purchase only.

If anyone has a working/copyright appropriate link to the actual article, it's addition would be welcome.

Will remove dead link to article, but leave the reference.

LackofFaithIffy (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Found a secondary reference of the same article and replaced the dead link with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LackofFaithIffy (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Revelations" by Gladio head

To quote a 2007 interview with Professor Daniele Ganser:

The United States were interested in the political control. This political control is an essential element of Washington and London’s strategy. General Geraldo Serravalle, at the head of Gladio, the Italian network Stay-behind, gives an example of this in his book. He tells us that he understood that the United States were not interested in the preparation of the guerrillas against an eventual Soviet invasion, when he saw that, what interested the CIA agents who went to the training exercises of the secret army that he was leading, was to make sure that the army worked, could control the communist militants. Their fear was that the communists took the power in countries such a Greece, Italy and France. Therefore, the strategy of tension was meant to serve that purpose: to orient and influence the politics of certain countries of Western Europe.

I don't see any hints towards this alternative theory in the article. Can anyone cite the original book? --Kistano (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

17 mentions/quotes from Daniele Ganser, conspiracy theorist

Isn't that a bit much? Especially without mentioning his leanings and other crackpot theories? Pär Larsson (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


Ganser's work is typical anti-US conspiracy theories; completely ignoring how to solve the problem of growing communism in Europe with its lack of respect of civil liberties at the time of the Cold War. Ganser also supports 9/11 conspiracy theories.The best criticism of his book comes experts in his field. Even they say he's stretching the "truth"Sabinal (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC) sabinal

Complete misrepresentation

Gladio was an official military programme. It WAS NOT involved in the various crimes and terrorist acts listed in the article. This entire article is POV and suggests that Gladio was an official government-run terrorist organization. Some individuals who were associated with Gladio may also have been associated with terrorism. The same applies for the army and police forces concerned. It is quite wrong to suggest that the armed forces, or Gladio, were themselves involved in criminal actions or terrorism.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

indeed. This article is a complete embarassment by Wikipedia's standards. The section "CIA's documents released in June 2006" is completely unrelated to Gladio and just harps on the old "the americans recruited former nazis for spy activities" theme. This part should be deleted as pointless and unsourced. Wefa (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

James Jesus Angelton

Whats the exactly role of James Jesus Angelton in Gladio?--93.184.26.78 (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims and Misleading Presentation

Let me start by saying I know nothing about Operation Gladio - I'd never heard of it before I came to this article - and my natural inclination is to a conservative / right-wing POV. So you might like to take that into account when you read what I write here.

There are a disturbing number of claims on this page that are not backed up by the sources they cite or other wiki articles they link to. In particular, the section on Italy seems quite misleading to me. It looks like it is presenting a list of proven or likely Gladio operations in Italy, but is in fact describing a series of background events surrounding Operation Gladio. While presenting these events, the impression is usually given that Gladio involvement is either proven or very likely, when following through to the main article or sources shows that either no allegation of Gladio involvement has been made or the allegations are described by the articles/sources as 'innuendo' or even 'conspiracy theories.' There are also a number of statements that are literally true when read carefully but are phrased so as to give a misleading impression.

Here are some examples:

1964 Piano Solo

Presented like this:

In 1964, Gladio was involved in a silent coup d'état when General Giovanni de Lorenzo in the so-called Piano Solo ("Operation Alone") forced the Italian Socialists Ministers to leave the government.

However, following the link to the main article it seems that a full-blown coup d'etat was planned but never carried out. There is a suggestion that this could have been used to apply political pressure but this is speculation.

1969 Piazza Fontana bombing

Presented like this:

According to Avanguardia Nazionale member Vincenzo Vinciguerra: "The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the politic and military authorities to declare a state of emergency".

Although the statement is literally true, a NPOV presentation should mention that several people from entirely different groups have all been convicted of this bombing and all those convictions have been overturned on appeal. The statement above makes it sound like Gladio involvement is pretty much proven.

1970 Golpe Borghese

Presented like this:

In 1970, the failed coup attempt Golpe Borghese gathered, around fascist Junio Valerio Borghese, international terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie and P2 grand master Licio Gelli.

The words "failed coup attempt" generally imply that someone attempted a coup but was foiled. When you follow through to the full article, you find out that it is an alleged coup plot. There was a planned gathering of right-wing activists. They claim it was a protest march, while a left-wing journal claims it was a coup plot. The gathering never happened, either because it was bucketing rain (right-wing claim) or because the government was aware of the plot and had police and army poised to swoop (left-wing claim). The 'conspirators' bunked off to a restaurant for spaghetti. In a way I'd like the left-wing claim to be true, it's so typically Italian: "What? The coup's off? Oh well. Let's have dinner." Anyway, the presentation here implies that a coup was planned and attempted, when in fact this has never been proven and anyone charged with it was either acquitted or had their conviction overturned.

November 23, 1973 Bombing of the plane Argo 16

Presented like this:

General Geraldo Serravalle, 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.

Again the statement is literally true but creates a very wrong impression. This sounds like Gladio involvement is now well established, but if you follow through to the source you find that actually General Serravalle's third-hand opinion is given as an example of "hints, suggestions, innuendoes" that Gladio has been responsible for incidents in Italy's past. Since we're on a page about a CIA-backed left-behind paramilitary network, it might also have been relevant to mention that Argo 16 was operated by the Italian security services and used by the CIA.

1974 Piazza della Loggia bombing, Italicus Express massacre, and arrest of Vito Miceli

In 1974, a massacre committed by Ordine Nuovo, during an anti-fascist demonstration in Brescia, kills eight and injures 102. The same year, a bomb in the Rome to Munich train "Italicus Express" kills 12 and injures 48. Also in 1974, Vito Miceli, P2 member, chief of the SIOS (Servizio Informazioni), Army Intelligence's Service from 1969 and SID's head from 1970 to 1974, got arrested on charges of "conspiration against the state" concerning investigations about Rosa dei venti, a state-infiltrated group involved in terrorist acts. During his trial, he revealed the existence of the NATO stay-behind secret army.

This creates the impression that Gladio was involved in the bombings and that there is some connection between this and Vito Miceli. But following through to the full articles, everyone charged over the Piazza della Loggia bombing was either acquitted or had their convictions overturned; I can find no suggestion of Gladio involvement in the Italicus Express massacre, and the article linked concerning Vito Miceli is the Italian wikipedia article about wind roses, it:Rosa dei venti. Vito Miceli's trial was in fact for involvement in the alleged Golpe Borghese coup.

1978 Murder of Aldo Moro

It is hard to know what point this section is making. Some of it is incoherent; for instance it is hard to know what this sentence is about:

The Italian Government led by Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga (a member of the extreme right faction of Italy's Christian Democrat party, a pro-NATO atlantist was also suspected of involvement in the killing of Aldo Moro).

lacking, as it does, a main verb. It's not clear what an atlantist is. 'Citation needed' tags abound. And, in the end, the only actual allegation of Gladio involvement made is that a safe house used by the same left-wing group undisputedly responsible for actually killing Aldo Moro contained letters stating that Gladio existed. The text works very hard to try to convert this into Gladio involvement in the killing.

1980 Bologna massacre

Once again, the text is literally true but unless you read very carefully it's quite misleading. In particular, this sentence:

The investigations concerning the Bologna bombing proved Gladio's direct influence: Licio Gelli, P2's headmaster, received a sentence for investigation diversion, as well as Francesco Pazienza and SISMI officers Pietro Musumeci and Giuseppe Belmonte.

It may well have proved Gladio's influence, but not involvement in the bombing itself. Once again, follow through to the full article and there are allegations of involvement of the Italian security services, but these are openly admitted (there) to be entirely unproven. The evidence adduced amounts to a political climate in which Gladio's involvement is thought to be likely and the use of a type of explosives also used by the Italian security services. No-one disputes that this attack was carried out by a right-wing group, but the leap from here to Gladio involvement is assumed, not evidenced.

1982 murder of General Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa, head of counter-terrorism

No article linked here mentions Gladio involvement and no sources are cited.

What I'm not saying

Please note that I'm not denying the existence of Gladio. It plainly existed.

I'm not denying Gladio's involvement in any of the above. It seems likely they were involved in a fair percentage of it.

I'm not saying that the CIA wasn't involved in Italy. It was, and probably still is.

I'm not saying that the left was to blame for all of Italy's problems. They're not.

I'm saying that this section does not present a balanced, NPOV account of the sources and it needs to be rebalanced to be NPOV.

GoldenRing (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent work on this, GoldenRing. Just one quibble - when you write "It seems likely they were involved in a fair percentage of it.", you seem to be making a quite unwarranted concession to the other side, perhaps without even noticing it. "Likely" arguably means that the odds are over 50%, and I don't know how anybody could even begin to calculate such odds. Might I suggest that you change that sentence to something like "It seems possible they were involved in a fair percentage of it.", or "It seems possible that some members of Gladio were involved in some of it, with or without the knowledge of some of their superiors.". It seems to me that sort of qualified statement is far more consistent with the evidence. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-English section

This is the english Wikipedia. I can find no other article that includes such a section. I see no reason to include it here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule against non-English sources; AFAICT, pointing to non-English further reading is useful and in line with policy, though if you can point out policy contra then I'm all ears. GoldenRing (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Further reading in languages other than English is absolutely normal, especially for topics that are particularly relevant to people who (also) speak other languages. What's a bit unusual is putting it under a separate heading. But of course that's not a reason to remove the references: it is at most a reason to remove the heading.
I am not commenting on the current state of this article on a major facet of post-war Europe, or the quality of any individual piece of literature. (For the simple reason that currently I don't have time to form an opinion.) Hans Adler 16:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
We have policy on non-english sources as refs and for quotes. Many editors use that as a guidepost for non-english additions. It is allowed but problematic. For obvious reasons. From WP:NONENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."
What I am most concerned about is the Other issues from WP:NONENG: 1. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS
"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
I see no suggestion that these sources are valid, valuable, important, or reliable. No edit has discussed these inclusions. We haven't even Verified they exist. Until and unless each of these supposed valuable additions are discussed (and verified) they should not and indeed must not be included. The onus is on the editor who wishes to include the material, not on the editor seeking to remove it. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So you see non-English sources as problematic, the policy does not at all. English refs are preferred, naturally. Thats no big deal. Its about the quality first. And I have consensus with the initial editor (lol? thats You, who started June 5 2014 7:24 this section including the books) that the now long existing material you tried to delete, is good enough to be added. If you want us to verify something specific go into details. But I see absolutely no reason to delete the inspiring non-english further readings material which is Gladio related and gives more background info. I appreciate the editors work and time. I really do not understand what brings you to the idea to completely delete non-english further reading. I think its quite interesting you are disputing own edits of june 2014 here. I wait for more voices.Spearmind (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha,ha. Yes that's funny that I added material that I now think should be removed. I believe I was just attempting an organization the previously unorganized mass of additions. They are clearly problematic for the Verification and Undue reasons I have stated above. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who believes it should be retained. You make no argument for any single book's inclusion. Let's try. Perhaps we should look at them one by one, keeping those that may actually help a reader. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This piece only mentions Gladio in passing. It adds nothing not already in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Again another piece that only conatins one brief sentence on Gladio. Adds nothing to the article or to deeper understanding. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an odd novel. "The protagonist, a young member of Gladio and last with a dark past behind, he moved to Hong Kong for work. Here comes in contact with one of the most fascinating questions of Christianity: the first 18 years of the life of Christ. By following the traces, the man will proceed in an initiatory journey that will take him to Tibet, from the mythical Shangri-La to North Korea." How this improves the article is beyond me. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I must say its not the job of further readings to add something which is not already in the article. Thats why its called further reading. It is an offer toe to get more background info about people events and history. All further readings offer somehow interesting stuff touching Gladio. And the range can be drawn wide.Spearmind (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The idea is to add something, anything, of value to the reader. We don't just add random books or articles. It has to add something of value, presumably something that adds some depth or understanding or that is not in the article. I suggest that these do not. The onus is upon those wishing to include to give a good reason why they should be included Capitalismojo (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I think the books listed in further reading make sense there and were chosen well by the editor (you) in june 2014. To value something is an individual thing; there will always be different opinions. You dont even need a very good reason to add something in this section as long it touches the subject.Spearmind (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well in all fairness, I did not choose one book. I only moved the non-English material in to a new section titled "Non-English". Prior to that there was only a large undifferentiated and largely unreadable mass of material. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
As regards only touching the subject, no. We endeavor to improve the understanding of subjects and improve articles. That means removing clutter, eliminating poor or incompetent material, and editing to assist the readers not to burden them with inconsequential "further reading". Capitalismojo (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok I can see it. So I ask the crowd if its ok to have just one further reading category like we had before June 2014.Spearmind (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo's Deletions

Why such deletion "orgy"? Daniele Ganser was important for Gladio research so all merged text should remain in the original article just as it was. In case its really required its possible to add Citation Needed notes instead of removing long existing content. Deletion of notable books because they are non english, or for an outdated hyperlink no matter of their still-existence? Just rolled it back to normal, see my notes. Please notice similar deletions in Daniele Ganser article.Spearmind (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Orgy? The article is a mess. Truly. Any material that is unref'd should be removed per policy. Material that fails verification must be removed and only returned with a reference. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy that says unref'd material should be removed (except perhaps in BLP cases). Unref'd material should be ref'd. GoldenRing (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Also the Ganser material was tagged for merger back in October of 2014. No one disgreed with the proposal. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not change the subject I started. Again he tried to delete "further readings" which were for long time in article. There is no "English Only" rule here for refs but also notable further readings. I was wondering in Gansers article there was only his English book listed and some people here say like this guy just wrote one book to feed the "conspiracy theorist" story. "Any material that is unref'd should be removed per policy." This is nonsense and there is no such policy. In case there is doubt about a (sometimes long time existing) ref-less sentence add a: "citation needed" note. Then readers are able to scrutinize the statement. Or on a larger scale there is discussion and agreement about removals. Its not ok to do so without talking to anyone here. Editors work needs more respect. They did a great job finding all these interesting books. "Challenge and remove unsourced material" in that order not vice versa. I dont know about any proposal or discussion about a merger in 2014, articles should remain without such.Spearmind (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:V Consider this removed material challenged. It is challenged because it fails verification efforts over many months and years. Much of it seems to be either made up or in stark opposition to what the refs say. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"challenged because it fails verification efforts over many months and years" Well I dont see any of such efforts by you. You tried to delete in a short period of time several whole blocks without ever asking for a citation "citation needed" or challenging it by discussion and hearing opinions and then coming to a decision backed by many. Thats what I mean with challenge first react/remove later. You just cannot do that vice versa. Where I saw citation needed marks I tried to resolve them and they were untouched for almost 5 years. But these are not the parts you tried to delete. You deleted material unchallenged for years. You must learn the challenging part. If some information is wrong or a citation is missing do not keep that for yourself and at one point decide to delete content.Spearmind (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

FOIA requests

Should this be included? Are three unsuccessful FOIA to the US government requests notable? If they are (which I doubt), should this be in a standalone section or should it be included in another section? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll put this in persective. The US State Dept had 18,000 FOIA requests in FY 2013, the CIA had 5,000 FOIA requests. (per google). Here is the FOIA website Capitalismojo (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I would not start an own section for "FOIA REQUESTS" but to place it somehere else (shortened?) at a better place in the article. Wait for more voices.Spearmind (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand...we already have a FOIA section. I think it should be removed, it is undue. If the material in that section remains what section should it be included with? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No I did not misunderstand. I know we have a FOIA section. For me its ok to remove the section and putting the content under it to another place where it makes sense. Could be merged with "US State Department's 2006 response" under new subject title ("Official responses (US)"?.Spearmind (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think maybe yes. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait a minute there once was a section "FOIA requests and US State Department’s 2006 communiqués". Can we change it back?Spearmind (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

General Maletti's testimony

This section is either Original Research or Synthesis. It failed verification. Nothing in the refs for the section say anything about Gladio. They all talk about the CIA/US government, they don't talk about Gladio. This being an article about Gladio, I removed it. It would have to be a very compelling argument (with solid refs) to re-include this material. See WP:V and WP:ONUS. . Capitalismojo (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is another long existing sentence you try to delete in the sense of an orgy. And again there was no discussion or agreement to do so.Spearmind (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There is not a single ref in the section I deleted that talks about Gladio. You find one and maybe we could include a sentence. This entire section is Synthesis. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I respect your point of view and we can discuss with further voices how to improve sentences without obtrusive deletions of whole blocks in advance. Also I need time to form my opinion how/if to elaborate the Maletti part. Until now in this section I did not really add new content but to bring the theguardian.com citation in line. Now the current text is correctly citated, (Maletti at one point said in an interview something not in court etc.) completely ref covered and the ref placed at the right place.Spearmind (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC) / Maletti is part of the Gladio structure and thats what the section is about, Gladio all over the place, its difficult not to see the connecting dots, even before my additions. Anyhow you should overthink deletion nights for whole blocks of content here without any ambition to challenge specific content.Spearmind (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Gladio in fiction

An Affair of State by Pat Frank supposedly refers to a gladio type operation in Soviet occupied Western Europe, yet the article refers to Hungary - which was already in Soviet occupied Eastern Europe. Is there an error or omission here?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Farrar-Hockley not controversial

I recall the attempt to organize a new home guard in the 1980's. I don't recall that it "aroused controversy" at all. It was ridiculed by left wing politicians and elements in the news media.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Gladio. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Europe Chapters of Gladio

Where are the Eastern Europe Chapters of Gladio? According to my knowledge the USA did take over all Secret Service Activities form the NAZIs with the end of WW2. The NAZIs as reliable anti-communists became of course friends with US sercret services. This is actually mainstream knowledge. Of course the contacts were kept alive, nurished and extended where possible. Finally the NATO civil war against former Socialist Yugoslavia would have not been possible without Kroatian and Kosovo-Albanian NAZI assets and the Bosnian fascist-like muslim relations, which becomes quite clear when you read the book of the former Bosnian leader Itzetbegovic. Same with the actually famous Ukrainan NAZIs, which could even be used by USA/NATO-countries to provide two polity coups. The so-called colored revolutions in all other former socialist countries of the Eastern Block did at least use the NAZI organisations partically or for consultation. Also when these actions did did run under a different name, it is related and should be mentionned in this article as a related similar operation. ---Mocvd (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about the Gehlen Organisation? And the Nightingale operation? They're definitely somewhat related, but not a part of Gladio proper--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Bologna bombings

Nothing about the Bologna bombings?? Really?

Yes, really. The Bologna bombing was carried out by terrorists. Gladio is or was a government agency. Nothing to do with terrorism.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be making a very strong statement there, that is not supported by the contents of the various enquiries into Gladio. What makes you so certain of this?--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Also governmental terrorism belongs to terrorism. Placing bombs in a train station and killing civilians in order to blame left wing parties to win more votes for the own conservative party is terrorism. ---Mocvd (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Evidence for Gladio being a terrorist network

It would appear that the only evidence for these stay behind organisations being CIA-organized right wing terrorists is the writings of Daniele Ganser. Therefore this should probably be deleted, or at least accompanied by a warning. Ganser is not the most credible source - he also believes that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Royalcourtier; you're making me quite wary of your opinion, given the way you are approaching this subject. You have not provided any supporting evidence for your contention, and you have actively argued against the inclusion of terrorist acts with known links to Gladio members, elsewhere. Can you explain further?--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Daniele Ganser is Professor for very related subjects in a Swiss university and a very reliable autor. Credibility is given by the sources in his books and of course not because of his person. ---Mocvd (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Operation Gladio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Operation Gladio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Gehlen Organisation

Why have references to this organisation been deleted from this article?--203.206.164.182 (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Other side

Did the warsaw pact or USSR have something similar? -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.123.198 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gladio/Archive_3&oldid=1096062524"