Talk:Cover-up

The link on Legend that led me to this article had this definition: "Legend (espionage), a cover story used in espionage detailing a fictitious identity" -- which appears nowhere in the actual article. Please remedy this and be vigilant that the article is not being steered, one way or another.

Thanks, -Bonnie Eng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.186.116 (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Satire

The link to the site about the sinking of the Titanic is an obvious piece of satire, written by the notorious Maddox, a well-known satirist.

As such, I'll remove the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.86.137 (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowjob

Being bold and merging Snowjob to here; I think its uncontroversial because its a synonym stub. It does list a few more scandals however. Content was:

"Snowjob" is an American colloquialism for a lie or a cover-up.

Examples

• The Dreyfus Affair
• The Watergate scandal
• The Iran-contra affair
• The My Lai Massacre
• The Plame Affair scandal
• The 9/11 conspiracy theories
• The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
• The USS Pueblo incident
• The Mark Foley scandal
• The Travelgate scandal
• The Lewinsky scandal
• The Abscam scandal

See also

• political scandal
• Political scandals of the United States
• List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

Bazzargh (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

I put some citations, where called for. Some were easy to get such as John F. Kennedy assassination cover-up and conspiracy theories, and some were surprisingly difficult, such as Plame affair, mostly due to link rot. Anyway if there are questions let me know on my talk pay please.--Adam in MO Talk 06:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead too long

The article was tagged lead (lede or abstract) too long; the article started off with the first section of the article and there was no lead. I seperated a lead paragraph from first section of article using the related Whitewash (censorship) article as a model and noted how cover-up and whitewash differ; removed lead too long tag. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Legend (espionage) redirection

The redirection to this page from Legend (espionage) is wrong. A Legend in espionage has little connection with the rest of this topic. An Legend is a fake identity used by a spy to pass themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.194.178 (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BARRYWBALES (talk • contribs) 08:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

...or is it SNOW job?

I'm thinking this term may have it's origins from WWII espionage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Owens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.53.117 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think "snow job" is synonymous with "cover up". It is actually the exact opposite. A cover-up is an attempt to conceal information. A snow job is a negotiation tactic whereby one party attempts to overwhelm the other party with a deluge of information. This can be used for intimidation or to exhaust the other party's resources. It is considered a hardball tactic by professional negotiators. My source is "Essentials of Negotiation" by Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry. Richard,alfred.swartz (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a cover-up, not a snow job, what is this?

Watt released papers in the 1930s claiming that he was grateful for the Air Ministry's help finding a suitable site for his ionosphere research. This was of course the first chain home radar site being set up. I always called this a "cover story", but that page is a disambig that points here, which is not correct. So what is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cover story isn't redirected here. It is a dab page that offers two options, including the following:

• a story in a magazine or newspaper whose subject matter appears on its front cover

Dolphin (t) 23:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards

Since March 2010 (4 years) this article has carried the banner stating: This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. The article makes many claims and statements but almost all of them are unsupported by any in-line citation to enable them to be independently verified. I have inserted a number of banners stating: This section does not cite any references or sources. See my diff.

In the absence of adequate in-line citations, this article looks like nothing more than someone’s personal essay. WP:NOTESSAY states: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

• Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them.

WP:VERIFY states that any information that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, must be supported by an in-line citation to show that it comes from a reliable source. In the absence of adequate verifiability, this article must be considered nothing more than a personal essay and those unsourced sections must be removed. Dolphin (t) 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: improve this article!

I wonder if someone could improve this page and turn it in a good or featured article. The matter is very important for the society as a whole, specially for us, the citizens! Many of us (probably the majority) do not believe on such cover-up operations, due to lack of quality public information about the subject. This topic is generally treated as being just a conspiracy theory. I would be glad to translate it.Faltur (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree! See my thread immediately above this one. Dolphin (t) 23:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Cruikshank caricature

First of all, I'm missing context. What does the "cover-up" in the caption refer to? Second, the wikipedia caption links to Pope Benedict XV., which cannot be right, because he didn't even become pope until well after Cruikshank's death. If the attribution to 1819 is correct, then it should probably by Pius VII. But since I can't verify that one either (and don't know enough about the CoE to know what event might have triggered this caricature), I changed it to link to the general "Pope" page. --Flosch (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)