Talk:U.S. Army Field Manual 30-31B

message: The nomenclature of the document is atypical, which is suspicious. Correct nomenclature would have been in this case FM 30-31-2. I know of no other Field Manuals of that epoch that used alphanumeric nomenclature. User:Shortguy54  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:74:CB35:84BE:E595:5E51:5387:AC5B (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ganser info needs to be shit canned. He is non-notable and not taken seriously in the intelegence community. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganser and the House reports disagree on the circumnstances of publication of the manual. Furthermore, the Belgian Parliamentary Report information is relevant and NPOV. Tazmaniacs 17:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Danish Defense Intelligence Service also came to the conlcusion that 30-31B was part of a KGB disinformation campaign in 1976. And, again, Ganser has zero credibility amongst the intelegence community and writers in of the intelegence community. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is absolutely no reason to delete the sourced passage concerning the Belgian report. Ganser's legitimacy is not yours only to judge. The reader is smart enough to judge on himself without your help. You are more than welcome to add the DDISS note about it, if you've got sources. Tazmaniacs 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ganser fails Wikipedia's standards for notability for many reasons, the least of which being that his article was not notable enough to survive an AfD. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion. It doesn't justify the deletion of the Belgian report, unless you call the Belgian Parliament a puppet of Ganser. Tazmaniacs 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that’s not my opinion, that was the consensus reached during the AfD. Since the Belgian report contains the following disclaimer: A certain prudence however imposes itself, as the Commission has no certitude concerning the authenticity of this document., it does not seem appropriate to quote it at such length considering that they were not able to confirm the status of the forgery. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what crack Ganser is on, but he got at least two dates wrong. Both CovertAction and the Triunfo (1978!) article state that 1975 is the first year that mentioned an appendix to FM 30-31. Intangible2.0 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: TDC, please show some willingness to negotiate even with people you disagree with. The Belgian report is interesting inasmuch as it is neutral and moderate, and contains this disclaimer. You see, with the same fact, I reach exactly the opposite conclusion than you do. And I am not on crack:) ! Tazmaniacs 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TDC is not alone in this.  I concur with his conclusions 100%!  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've included a short discussion instead. It is basically all what needs to be said. The Frnankovich documentary includes hoaxer Oswald LeWinter btw. Intangible2.0 11:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Please explain this edit. It has very long quotes which are probably copyright violations and also deletes sourced material and sources. If no explanation, then the the old version will be restored.Ultramarine 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no copyright violation, the whole report is about 200 pages long if my memory's correct. It is fully relevant. Furthermore, we should respect NPOV policy, which in this case means that the article should not endorse neither Ganser's claim that the Manual is genuine, nor the US Department's claim that it is a forgery. The purpose of the article should be to explain the controversy, certainly not to assert the Manual's genuineness or not. Tazmaniacs 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More than a few paragraphs is a copyright violation which is violated in several different places. Please explain the deletion of sourced material.Ultramarine 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not so. Please review what copyright is and fair use. Tazmaniacs 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use covers at most a few paragraphs and that is stretching it.Ultramarine 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long quotes and removal of sourced information 

message: For the reasons stated immediately above, I've added the POV template. This article is now fully endorsing the US State Department's version, and has erased all references to the Belgian parliamentary report on Gladio. See controversed diff. Tazmaniacs 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps condensing what was stated in that source would be better, instead of such large quotes. That way we can NPOV the opening paragraph since two sides will be presented, then explain in each section both views. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could surely condense this. But surely we should first agree on the introduction, and the 3 deleted sources questionning the official US version should be reestablished. The Belgian parliamentary report certainly deserves mention! Tazmaniacs 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV template 

message: Just stumbled onto this page. The page gives no information as to what the manual actually contained.
Notmyrealname 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be WP:Undue weight. There is a link at the bottom to the Belgian Senate Report, which has the copy. Intangible2.0 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't read Belgian.  71.185.138.33 (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you honestly just say its undue weight to state the contents of the manual the article is about? Can you clarify further. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's pretty darn ridiculous. In any case, the Belgian report only has a couple of short excerpts from the manual. This really needs to be fixed for this article to make any sense. Notmyrealname 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This diff had some info about the manual. It is in German here. Tazmaniacs 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A summary equal to the refutation. If there is a circle that believes it is legit, then they should be given the same weight as those who believe it is not, per undue weight. There should also be an explanation over what was in the document as this article makes little sense without it.  --SevenOfDiamonds 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if they have no credibility in thier respective circles? Come on now, what about WP:WEIGHT/ Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Then provide reliable sources that this is case. Ganser and Francovich are already mentioned in accordance to how much room should be given to their views. Intangible2.0 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A section will be created per undue weight that looks at the Belgian Senate Report, Ganser and Frankovich's views. Oddly from what I understand Ganser does not dispute it being a forgery. Per undue weight, the view that it is real, which is repeated through this article, should be properly mentioned in its full context. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganser speaks of the circumstances of appearance of the Field Manual, which was also quoted by the Belgian Parliamentary Commission on Gladio. The only people who are so sure it is a forgery is the US State Dept., neither Ganser nor the Belgian Commission have declared it to be either a forgery or genuine, as they have not considered it possible to ascertain neither. So it is wrong to say that "Ganser (or the Belgian Commission) do not dispute it is a forgery", both have withheld their views on the matter. What the current state of the article is doing is: "let's blindly believe the US STate Dept., if it speaks, it is true." These people don't lie, believe me! Tazmaniacs 13:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then come with reliable sources that dispute this claim. Please also read WP:TALK: "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." Please do. Intangible2.0 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would I come up with "RS that dispute this claim," when I've just stated that the only problem is that nobody knows if it's genuine or not, and that the only people in the world who are 100 per cent sure about this is the US State Department, a sure source for information on shady actions by the CIA. I believe we've worked in quite a cooperative manner for some time now, Intangible, I would like it if you did not throw out at me Wikirules. Thanks, and cheers again — it's only politics, and screen-politics at that! Tazmaniacs 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is still no information about what the manual actually contained. The article doesn't even say how closely the document matched the (now exposed) stay-behind organisations which did exist. Can someone please fill in this most important detail - without it the article seems pointless 195.153.45.54 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How can anyone refute, or confirm details which are not present on the page? 195.153.45.54 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this version had details, but it has been overturned. I personally agree with you. Tazmaniacs 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wanted to point out that the article concludes that "However, the U.S Department of State, concluded in 2006 that" etc, etc, as though the State Dept.'s opinion was enough to classify the text as a forgery and is above any questioning. I think the article should be edited in a sense that it's made clear that the forgery controversy is still open and that this is not a proven fake, so that would allow the neutrality tag to go as well, Both Tazmaniacs and DiamondsOfSeven have valid points above, I don't see why the debate remained unsolved with the article still being as it is. KlemensVonMetternich 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  This article contains no real information.  Denial by the possibly guilty party is not proof.  Refferences to sources that are intimately involved are not refferences.  Is this information or disinformation?71.185.138.33 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So I guess nobody is going to add any of the actual content to the article?  The article is pathetic as is considering it doesn't enumerate anything in the Manuel-- which is what the article is about.  This article is completely worthless without this information.  All it discusses now is a back and forth about whether it's authentic or not. Wikipediarules2221 07:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Content missing

message: Can the tag be removed? Intangible2.0 23:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With no subsequent edits, I'd lean towards no normally, but the comment is adequately sourced and so trivial that, even if it were disputed, tagging the entire article seems like overkill. MrZaiustalk 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it be removed? Of the problems lifted in the above section, nothing has been solved. This diff is a more NPOV version of the article. Tazmaniacs 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See section immediately above. Tazmaniacs 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tag 

message: https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/09/05/infamous-u-s-army-counterinsurgency-manual-fm-30-31b-used-in-false-flag-terrorist-operations-is-authentic-top-intelligence-insiders-and-criminal-investigations-finally-reveal/
found this source, does anyone know if it's reliable? the wikipeida article on covertactionmagazine doesn't mention much regarding reliability. 199.80.250.131 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could extract the primary sources listed in the article, like the statements made by General Notarnicola, then it would be allowed in. Of course that would probably require some understanding of Italian. In all honesty this article reeks of NPOV, as the lively discussion in this talk page should be proof enough that there is relevant enough dispute to at least change the introduction as User:Pristino suggested. RockDater (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  CovertActionMagazine