Talk:Open secret: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 67.185.161.246 - "→Area 51 open secret: new section" |
upr |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=no|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Intel=yes}} |
|||
{{WPMILHIST|class=Stub |
|||
|B-Class-1=no |
|||
|B-Class-2=no |
|||
|B-Class-3=no |
|||
|B-Class-4=no |
|||
|B-Class-5=no |
|||
|Intel=yes |
|||
|auto=yes |
|||
}} |
|||
==note== |
==note== |
||
Revision as of 02:02, 4 December 2013
 | Military history: Intelligence Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
note
Do take note that DARPA of US DoD is an open secret and shouldn't be argue due to the following. Although the Security of DARPA is more for technical related content than for a general audience, as what Open Secret connotate. However, not everybody who work in Computer industry agrees that the level of difficulty is equivalent university level. Also take note that Computer Literacy is regarded in some countries or education systems an important factor that is develop upon. So it is not incorrect categorize DARPA security as a Closed Secret.
The technical audience I refer to are: IT and Computer Security --75.154.186.241 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Disputed and/or misleading
I have added the disputed tag: A number of given examples are not open secrets, but either factually disputable or presented in a misleading manner. Some may even land in the realm of conspiracy theory. 94.220.248.242 (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Which ones? Maybe all of them? 173.183.69.134 (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
the opposite is more common
Is there an article about when something is officially confirmed but denied or even seen as ridiculous throughout the media? If there is it should be on the see also section, which is currently absent. (Just because we lack a word to describe the reverse, doesn't men we shouldn't make an article about it...) 173.183.69.134 (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Area 51 open secret
The definition in the first sentence says an open secret is one "which none of the people most intimately concerned are willing to categorically acknowledge in public". The Area 51 example immediately below that says that the U.S. Government did not acknowledge it until 2013 with the release of CIA documents.
However, defense contractors like Lockheed had been using it for decades, and Ben Rich's 1996 book "Skunk Works" described Groom Lake's use as a test facility in great detail. Were Ben Rich and the others working there not "intimately concerned" with it?
It seems like perhaps the term "open secret" needs some other qualification, e.g., for a government fact, that the government itself has to acknowledge it as a matter of official policy, even if non-government workers are most "intimately concerned" with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)