Talk:Covert operation

message: What documentation exists for the pox blankets claim?
The article has a clear anti-religious POV that builds to absurdity in the last paragraph. Were the Catholic church's activities against the Soviet bloc really covert ops? Was the church doing work for other states that was not a normal part of church business? Was the Inquisition all that covert? Please clarify. Gazpacho
I am not the original author, but I added an external link to a web page disucssing smallpox blankets and also an internal link to the article on Jeffery Amhurst, which also mentions the smallpox blankets.  
I do not see any anti-religious POV in the article nor any mention of the Inquisition.  I assume these issues have been corrected.  
I think that this article needs fleshing out.  I think there is probably much more to say on the subject.  That is why I added the stub flag, even though it is longer than the typical stub.  --Lenehey
Yes, I have removed the anti-religious sections. Gazpacho 00:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pox Blankets 

message: Added section, and some links to related materials.
--Dredeyedick 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Section Added 

message: Added this section with a short description, a representative quote, and links, as an example of an ongoing covert operation that has been covered by the media and in at least one public congressional hearing. Added links to pdf and html versions of 901 MI Group spreadsheet of protests. At first tried to include footnote ref tags, but I could not get them to work properly.  The existing footnote ref doesn't seem to be done in the recommended way, and I figured the time I had available to work would be better spent adding new content.  I'm still new and studying footnotes, wikitags and stuff.  Even so, tried to clean up and make a bit more regular to bulleted list of examples of covert actions, without changing each to full blown sections (which they should probably / might eventually be).
--Dredeyedick 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  902 Military Intelligence Group infiltrates Quakers 

message: Added a few related items to 'See Also' section.  (Some don't yet have articles, but are related topics, imo).--Dredeyedick 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also items added 

message: Added magic "forcetoc" tag to generate TOC for this talk page. --Dredeyedick 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced TOC for this page 

message: On the question of whether this entry for covert opertations should be merged with Black ops- shouldn't it be the other way around? As I understand it, Black Ops is more of an intelligence community jargon for covert ops, so wouldn't it make more sense to subsume black ops into covert ops?
The decoy 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Black Ops? 

message: The topic of Covert Ops in an increddibly broad one; it includes everything from the most mundaine contact handeling in Afganistan (which is by no means illegal) to some outrageous Bond film. In fact, most Covert Ops are well within the confinds of (inter)national laws and are part of everyday militairy and civil normal framework operations. The Covert Ops described in this article are notable exeptions to the rule and due to their nature capture our imagination and form unrealistic views on the subject. Therefor I suggest the article be renamed something along the lines of: "Popular views of Covert Operations" or "Covert Operations in contemporary media". --Brisbane2000 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title rethink

message: While I appreciate that all covert operations are not espionage, as the article previously was categorized, I also would be hesitant to categorize all covert operations as state terrorism, as in the edit today of the category.  Espionage, in trade terms, is more clandestine than covert. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NNPOV of categories?? 

message: The article currently says:
The CIA was also designated as the sole authority under the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act  and in Title 50 of the United States Code Section 413(e).
However, there is no 50 USC 413(e) or 413e, and nothing in any part of section 413 relates to the CIA being a sole authority for covert action. On the contrary, the section says that the President may empower any government office to undertake covert action, on a case-by-case basis. The wording also implies that the CIA holds this condition by default, exclusively, but it doesn't actually say that. --216.145.71.126 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate/obsolete legal information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Covert operation. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707201837/http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/big_brother_talons_on_you.html to http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/big_brother_talons_on_you.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see User:Hippo43 just removed an entire section of covert operators based on this being unsourced, but all the material is in the linked pages. While removing the entries that don't have existing pages makes sense, I don't know that we should remove all listings when the sources are referenced on the main articles for each individual. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "unsourced" material on operators 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Covert operation. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116203108/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/feb/raw.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/feb/raw.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908051027/http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/hershstmt12006.html to http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/hershstmt12006.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908050045/http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsabrieftranscript12006.html to http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsabrieftranscript12006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified