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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

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)[reply]

I've added a POV tag. The Ganser stuff needs to be rewritten. It is easy denote how the manual got published, the House reports have this info as well. This does not need to be attributed to Ganser. Intangible2.0 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
TDC is not alone in this. I concur with his conclusions 100%!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Very long quotes and removal of sourced information[edit]

Please explain this edit.[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is not so. Please review what copyright is and fair use. Tazmaniacs 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use covers at most a few paragraphs and that is stretching it.Ultramarine 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The current introduction is NPOV in that it does not take side in the controversy. One can not start the article by saying that "The US Army Field Manual... is a forgery" since this is specifically the matter in discussion! Let's please try to find some middle-ground, accusing the other of propaganda is no use on such a matter. Tazmaniacs 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully. To dismisses black operations as conspiracy theories is factually wrong. They exist. Remember the brits caught in arab clothes in Basra? A russian disinfo campaign is possible, but how they went about it (the act of publishing) is so lame that it seems unlikely. I bet it is authentic. 203.100.218.183 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a controversy with sides. It is a forgery that's been integrated into a bunch of conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specified that the US Government believes its a forgery as that is the only source provided. Please provide more sources to expand to a general "critics" argument. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean one source? There is already a Washington Post article, Christian Science Monitor article and the testimony of a KGB defector and other testimony before the U.S. Congress provided in this article as sources. Intangible2.0 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source the statement then, as would be proper. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also just to note, WAPO is reporting the US view. So if ten people are saying the US says its fake, then its still the US saying its fake. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The controversed diff (see below) shows clearly that if the current article does not lack sources claiming the Manual is a forgery, it has deleted all references to sources questioning this assertion (mainly, Belgian parliamentary report, Ganser & Francovich). Being NPOV is reporting all views. Tazmaniacs 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated I think you should just summarize a little better what the report stated and then add it back, the only issue presented was the amount quoted. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could start by changing "fake signature" by "alleged fake signature", as I personally have no possibility to ascertain if that signature was, or not, fake — as, I expect, all of you... Tazmaniacs 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Francovich movie is not a reliable source. See Oswald LeWinter. Intangible2.0 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not because LeWinter is not reliable that Francovich is not. He has recorded statements by a wide variety of sources. Tazmaniacs 13:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LeWinter is the only one in the Francovich doc that talks about 30-31B. Intangible2.0 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Crikey's sake, I totally forgot about LeWinter[2]! The Francovich documentary is definitely out now. If he relies on a known fraud like LeWinter, nothing he said can be taken as reliable or well researched. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LeWinter is not the only one: "In his BBC documentary on Gladio, Allan Francovich presented a copy of FM 30-31 B to senior US officials. Ray Cline, Deputy CIA Director for Intelligence in the 1960s confirmed: "This is an authentic document." William Colby, CIA Director from 1973 to 1976 and who had helped set up the Gladio network in Scandinavian countries, claimed "I have never heard of it." CIA propaganda expert Michael Ledeen declared it to be a Soviet forgery. Licio Gelli, head of the Propaganda Due masonesque lodge, said to Francovich: "The CIA gave it to me.". Tazmaniacs 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Tazmaniacs, but I have to call shenanigans on that.
Ray Cline: Well, I suspect it is an authentic document. I don't doubt it. I never saw it but it's the kind of special forces military operations that are described
He was not presented with it, only asked about it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV template[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Content missing[edit]

Just stumbled onto this page. The page gives no information as to what the manual actually contained. Notmyrealname 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I don't read Belgian. 71.185.138.33 (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This diff had some info about the manual. It is in German here. Tazmaniacs 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brief summary, two or three sentences might be in order, after all we have some discussion on content on the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, why not on this forgery as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

While he never says "I beleive this to a forgery" or "I beleive this to be the real thing" he certainly goes on and on about it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How can anyone refute, or confirm details which are not present on the page? 195.153.45.54 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this version had details, but it has been overturned. I personally agree with you. Tazmaniacs 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

tag[edit]

Can the tag be removed? Intangible2.0 23:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Quite apparent that that version was contested as well, from the edit history. Would you please clarify precisely what about the present version of the article is still being contested, and, if possible, flag specific sections/statements instead of the blanket article-wide tag. Again, tagging the entire article seems like overkill. MrZaiustalk 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See section immediately above. Tazmaniacs 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a comparable document series[edit]

Over the years, I've seen a great many military documents, unclassified and classified. I have never seen a Field Manual that was classified above SECRET. That isn't to say that there aren't many documents that would have TS or TS/SPECIAL ACCESS classifications, but they would be in other document series. Field Manuals also aren't specific to an area such as Europe, but deal with techniques applicable worldwide.

Now, if this document were a NATO Operations Plan, TS would be perfectly reasonable. For a Special Operations annex, I'd tend to expect some additional caveats or codewords. For example, the planning documents for the 2003 invasion of Iraq were classified TOP SECRET/POLO STEP. Field Manuals are not used for operational planning.

I suggest that anyone that believes this is legitimate find one verifiable US Army Field Manual, presumably an Annex, classified at the TOP SECRET level. Defense Department Instructions, sure. Combatant Command operations plans, sure. Any number of intelligence documents. 30 years ago, there was no Special Operations command, so this either would have come out of 10th Special Forces Group in Germany, or possibly Special Forces HQ at Fort Bragg.

Further, it's relatively uncommon, except for short-term operational documents, to be TS without additional markings. In the Horner/Clancy Every Man a Tiger, the illustrations show photographs of TS (only) cover sheets on the daily Air Tasking Order for Desert Storm. If one looks at the article on US classified information on Wikipedia, you will see different cover sheets for TS and TS/CODEWORD. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These considerations, yours along with the first comment on this page, over the formatting of the document actually kind of make me suspicious of that it is a KGB forgery, as, surely the KGB would know how to falsify an intelligence field manual, which, since they are the alleged party to have forged the document, would seem to go to the credit of its authenticity.
I'm not really arguing one way or another, but do agree with that the first sentence should be revised to say "alleged hoax" or something to that effect, as the Belgian commission's neutral standpoint is about all that there really seems to go on. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

The constant use of 'reportedly' violates WP:AWW. No one in the past thirty years has taken 30-31B seriously. If no other editors can come up with a good reason not to, I'm deleting all the 'reportedly' comments. MWShort (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV says you have to present all sides of an issue. Greek investigative journalists relied on the documents in 2005.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV also states that the sources must be reliable. What do these Greek investigative journalists base their assessment on? MWShort (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is itself a reliable source. You can disagree with their analysis and report on the State Department's reaction to it, but if it was a marginal or unimportant source the State Dept would have ignored it. Readers can draw their own conclusions.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to change the lead to 'The US Army Field Manual 30-31B is a forged document presented as a a classified appendix to a US Army Field Manual....' I think the occasional claims to its authenticty are sufficiently dealt with in the discussion section. MWShort (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not see where you are getting the idea that this is justified, and the statement that "no one has taken 30-31B seriously" is clearly false. There appears to be no proof that this is real, no proof that it is a forgery, and no clear consensus in the (sparse) literature either way. (For the record, I assume it's probably a forgery.) I'm changing "forged" in the first sentence to "alleged."
Also, "weasel words" refers to vague or made up attributions, ("some people say") not to legitimate qualifiers like "alleged." WP:AWW is not a license to present unjustified certainty where none exists. EvanHarper (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The article currently opens with the following phrase:

(A) The US Army Field Manual 30-31B is Cold War-era hoax conducted by the Soviet intelligence services.

This is not the proper way to open an encyclopedia article. The previous version is superior:

(B) The US Army Field Manual 30-31B is an alleged classified appendix to a US Army Field Manual that describes top-secret counter insurgency tactics.

Phrase B correctly describes the article's subject, while Phrase A does not; it simply concludes it is a "hoax" without telling us anything about it.

Furthermore, Phrase A repeats information already present in the introduction's closing paragraph:

The U.S. government describes the document as a forgery.

And it presents this view held by "the U.S. government" as if it were also Wikipedia's position. This is incorrect.

I will wait one week for further comments. After that, I will revert back to Phrase B. Pristino (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. We have RS that describe it as a forgery. This is not a matter of opinion which must be attributed, this is a matter of well referenced fact. Fringe conspiracy theory does not allow editors to deprecate RS mainstream academic and media sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is a news article from the Washington Post saying that the U.S. House Intelligence Committee came to the conclusion that the manual is a forgery. The RS (Washington Post) did not carry out an independent investigation and found it was a forgery. Therefore, the (modified) closing paragraph (The U.S. government describes the document as a forgery.) is accurate and neutral and should remain there, while the opening paragraph (The US Army Field Manual 30-31B is Cold War-era hoax conducted by the Soviet intelligence services.) should be removed.
The closing paragraph could be modified in the following manner:
The U.S. government describes the document as a forgery attributed to Soviet intelligence services.
Pristino (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ignores the CS Monitor ref and the multiple academic refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? There are no 'multiple academic references', just lots of denial and rejection articles and 'reports' from U.S. sources. Nothing is proven either way. The U.S. government has been involved in so many clandestine operations and 'dirty wars' such as 'Condor' that official sources are unreliable.

The only people I see pushing the notion that it's not a forgery are phony intellectual left-wingers, gullible followers of people like Webster Tarpley and other conspiracy freaks. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CovertActionMagazine[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Army_Field_Manual_30-31B&oldid=1212476979"