Jump to content

User:Morton devonshire/Egadio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro

The purpose of this page is a sandbox for the issue of the bizarre conspiracy theory Operation Gladio and its equally bizarre iterations in much of Western Europe.

Ganser Relies Upon Soviet Forgery for his Research

Source: US State Department.


Source: The Journal of Intelligence History

Contrast those comments with Ganser's uncritical, and enthusiastic endorsement in his own work:

The quote is complete and unedited. Source: Ganser, Daniele, NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (Publ. Frank Cass 2005), Chp. 17, fn. 43, pg.297.

Ganser uncritically accepts the authenticity of the forged Soviet documents, and in fact, applauds a newspaper for "courageously publishing" the obviously bogus document. So much for academic objectivity. If I can spend 5 minutes on the internet finding a reliable source (i.e. the US State Department communique) that calls into doubt the authenticity of the document providing the pivotal basis for Ganser's theory that the CIA was behind a vast network of terrorist activity in Western Europe, then you have to wonder just how rigorous Ganser's work really is. The entire work is merely a re-hash of every Communist and Leftist secondary source on the continent. Türkishce Konterguerilla as a source for your PhD work? Get real.

Ganser's Work Written With Both Eyes Closed

See this book review at thinktank The Journal of Intelligence History, where the reviewer characterizes Ganser's work as "a journalistic book with a big spoonful of conspiracy theories."

Ganser Declared Unreliable by Wiki Admin

With respect to the reliability of Daniele Ganser's work as a source in Wikipedia, Lord Seabhcan of Baloney asks Admin Fred Bauder for clarification as to whether Ganser meets WP:RS requirements:

Help on WP:RS dispute

Hi, I wonder if you could lend an outsiders opinion to a dispute that has been raging on articles related to Operation Gladio. The dispute is whether a book on the subject is an WP:RS or not. The book is by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zurich university. The book was published by them and Ganser received a PhD from that University for this work. ETH Zurich is very prestigious, having been the university where Einstein worked and having 21 Nobel prize winners on their staff. It is one of the fore-most universities in Europe.

I and others say this makes the book notable. Another group of editors say that because Ganser joined a group called 9/11 Scholars for Truth two years after the book was published, Ganser's work becomes suspect and cannot be referenced.

What do you think? I'd prefer not to go through the trouble of arbitration for such a specific issue. Thanks. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[1]

Admin Fred Bauder's reply:

Help on WP:RS dispute

A source authored by a person engaged in a propaganda operation such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth would be considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[2]

Result: Daniele Ganser is not a reputable source on Wikipedia, and his work may be removed.

  • Daniele Ganser is cited in 45! Wikipedia articles. A bit overkill for a writer who blindly swallows old Soviet propaganda[3].

Acedemic works which cite Ganser

According to my library's database, Ganser's book has been cited by by Konstantina Maragkou in the journal Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (Volume 6, Issue 4 December 2006, pages 427-443); by Deborah Kisatsky in the book _The United States and the European Right_, published by Ohio State University Press in 2005; and by Linda Risso in the article "'Enlightening Public Opinion': A Study of NATO's Information Policies between 1949 and 1959 based on Recently Declassified Documents," which was published by the journal Cold War History in February 2007. Also, a Gladio-related article by Ganser was cited by Brynjar Lia in the book _Globalisation and the Future of Terrorism: Patterns and Predictions_, published by Routledge in 2005. That's four academic citations. I've ordered some of his reviews via library loan: if you're interested I can summarize them once they arrive... Katsam 10:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[4]

Articles to Watch