Talk:Operation Valuable

No mention of Kim Philby & incredibly biased
First of all, article has no mention of Kim Philby & co. as likely sources for the betrayal. As others have pointed out, this article is completely non neutral, it reads like a propaganda leaflet from a third world country. Not to mention that the title is completely random. The page should be named after the operation, or more generally "Covert Operations in Albania" or something like that. High Leader (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't find the article biased now. If you think it is non-neutral, which side's viewpoint do you think it presents? Omission of Kim Philby: assuming that you can cite published evidence that it was only, or mainly, Philby who leaked information about the operations, he could be mentioned; but I don't see it as necessary to the core of the article. Longitude2 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Dwyer links to the wrong person.
In operational section Peter Dwyer links to a person that was 12 years old at the time and has nothing to do with the military, intelligence or the government. 2A04:EE41:3:12EA:3D40:66A3:F4A1:E486 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Move Page
Hello everyone I wanted to suggest that we change Operation Valuable to Anglo-American Invasion of Communist Albania because not only was this operation not called Operation Valuable it was also OBOPUS/BGFIEND on that also I found an article where it was described as a 1950s invasion I would then just do it in such a way that we would change it the way I did it before NormalguyfromUK (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This probably shouldn't be regarded as a military operation at all. It's certainly not an invasion. Gugrak (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But it was also seen as a paramilitary operation, these are facts NormalguyfromUK (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Albanian soldiers were also used to surround and kill the paramilitary soldiers, and there were skirmishes! NormalguyfromUK (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So again it would be better if we move the page to 1949 Anglo-American invasion of Communist Albania the page for the first reason because Operation Valuable was called the English operation of MI6 and the operation of the American OBOPUS/BGFIEND did go to 1957 and to that too this page has a lot to do with the American operation eas and in many articles this was commonly referred to as the Anglo-American invasion of Communist Albania NormalguyfromUK (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @NormalguyfromUK As noted on your talk page, do not move the article unilaterally when there is no consensus among the participants here. Your best bet is to open a requested move discussion and invite the broader editing community to help arrive at a consensus. – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There wasn't an Anglo-American invasion and I've seen absolutely no evidence of thisbeing referred to in such a way in RS. The WP:COMMONNAME is Operation Valuable.Gugrak (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Forces involved
The recent additions are either not properly sourced, or outright fail verification. The CIA pirate submarine force never actually existed. Gugrak (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * But the source says that e were 5 and there were no CIA pirates NormalguyfromUK (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the source talks about a proposal to get 5 submarines and to operate thaem unflagged like pirates. It does not say that this force ever actually existed or operated.Gugrak (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Rename page
Dear Wikipedia community, I would like to draw the attention of all participants to the proposed renaming of the military operation codenamed "Operation Valuable." It is suggested to change the name to "1949 Anglo-American Invasion of Communist Albania." I would like to highlight some important points that support this change. Firstly, "Operation Valuable" was the codename used by the British intelligence agency MI6 for a military operation that took place in 1949. This operation has been referred to as an invasion by many historians and authors. Therefore, using the term "invasion" seems appropriate and accurate in describing the nature of the action. Secondly, "Operation Valuable" was not the only military operation that occurred during this period. There were also the operations "OBOPUS" and "BGFIEND" carried out by American intelligence agencies. These operations, which lasted until 1956, aimed to contain communist activities in Albania. Renaming the operation would better reflect the diversity of actions involved. I propose that we adopt the new name "1949 Anglo-American Invasion of Communist Albania" to emphasize both the British and American contributions and to provide a more comprehensive historical context for these operations. Please consider these points and share your thoughts on the proposed name change. We should strive to provide an accurate and comprehensive representation of history, supported by academic sources and recognized historians. Thank you for your attention. Best regards, NormalguyfromUK (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

:There are sources calling it Operation Valuable. There aren't any sources calling it the 1949 Anglo-American invasion of Communist Albania (not least because such an event never occurred). There's no reason to chance the name. Gugrak (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Even if you have been blocked, I still want to answer it first in sources such as here He seems to betrayed the invasion of Albania in 1949 or also here When the CIA later planned a covert invasion of Albania or also here As for Philby, CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton accused the Englishman of sabotaging the abortive 1949 Anglo-American invasion of communist Albania—the nations’ first joint covert endeavor in the Cold WarHere in the 4 sources you can see for yourself that it was considered an invasion. Therefore I would also recommend changing the article to 1949 Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania because Operation Valuable as already explained was code only as was OBOPUS BG/FIEND NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Neither a 'planned' invasion nor an 'abortive' one constitute an actual invasion, as the term is normally understood. The proposed new title seems potentially misleading, even if a few sources have used the word. I'd recommend giving this more thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The second two sources do not appear to be reliable sources. The second source was written by a non-expert, while the third source is a tabloid. You need reliable sources to establish notability. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * An invasion implies a large number of insurgents or troops who are commanded to capture territory. The Op Valuable insurgents were few in number, small groups, and were not expected to capture territory -- only organize resistance. Valuable and for that matter BG/FIEND cannot be considered any form of invasion.  Also, there are books written on the subject of Valuable and it is now known by that historic operation designation. To change the designated name of this operation as originally coined by the SIS to something else, should be rejected. 97.120.82.3 (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No casualties
Why is it blank for the Albanian casualties? Napalm Guy (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The article 1950 Albanian coastline ambushes appears to be a redundant fork of the article Operation Valuable, since they're about the same subject. Everything in that article can be covered in this article. This article requires improvement and not unnecessary sub-articles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. pointless content fork from operation valuable, with a made up title for activities that aren't covered outside of Operation Valuable in other sources.37.245.43.126 (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not merge It isnt a content fork. This is an ambush that was made as a separate article which is also legitimate I wanted to say in 2001 Macedonian Insurgency there are also many pages about ambushes that were made as a separate article.So I find it pointless to merge.
 * PS 2001:9E8:110A:F300:24CF:271C:F698:3C58 (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not merge Same way we don't remove pages like the Battle of Białystok-Minsk and Baltic operation (1941) even though they and the 1950 Albanian coastline ambushes were engagements conducted under Operations. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between this article and Operation Barbarossa and 2001 insurgency in Macedonia, and that is the size. Currently this article has 1,866 words, Operation Barbarossa has 13,775 words and 2001 insurgency in Macedonia has 10,268 words. So per WP:SPLIT, there's no good reason for this article to be split into new articles. Usually articles get split into new articles so that they don't get too big and harder to read. This article needs improvement and expansion, not new and unnecessary sub-articles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Check out the Vejce Ambush this is also an ambush not with much text and as later articles were made aim yours is really to delete all articles related to the Albanians ridiculous 2001:9E8:1113:F500:C19C:510A:53C4:20F3 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What's ridiculous is the endless creation of content and POV fork articles for the greater glory of Albania by the NormalGuyfromUK/BasedShqiptarformpirok sockfarm for the seeming sole purpose of adding an info box with Albanian Victory in the result parameter.
 * If you remove all the stuff which fails verification in the sources cited on 1950 Albanian coastline ambushes (since as usual you're misrepresenting sources and relying on no-one actually checking them) then you're left with one sentence to merge into Operation Valuable. Unfortunately the version that got indef PP is the one with all the rubbish left in it, but even then there's nothing that isn't better served by being merged into the appropriate article - which is Operation Valuable. 37.245.43.126 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Bruh cmon bro Gugrak go cry and dont piss me off you even cant argue 2001:9E8:1128:7D00:A074:EC44:F043:AC40 (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All these Frankfurt IPs you're using are adding to the evidence that GermanManfromFrankfurt is part of the sockfarm as well, as if any more were really needed. 37.245.43.126 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the same like them you are also creating acc you are not a better sock bruh 2001:9E8:1128:7D00:A074:EC44:F043:AC40 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when has it been disallowed to create pages dedicated to a single topic? I'm interested in Albanian military history, and regrettably, our military history isn't widely recognized. In other words, there aren't many pages about it. Despite numerous investigations into me, none of them have proven any wrongdoing. Some of these investigations were initiated by Gugrak, who was banned during the investigations but still didn't stop him from using other accounts. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not being widely recognised is not a reason to create puff content forks. One check user suggested you weren't technically linked. Behaviourally there's abundant evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.204.18.239 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. The other article is vague, bereft of information, and if everything in it can be covered in this article, then a marge is the best option right now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)