|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Linguistics||(Rated Stub-class)|
On 30 October 2009 a tag was placed on this article to merge it with Code talker. However, the tagger did not discuss the merge here as is requested by the tag and nothing has been done in the ten months since the tag was applied.
Had a discussion been started I would have pointed that this article is about a philosophical paradox and is only related to the Code talkers by its name. As no discussion was started and the tag appears to have been a "drive-by", I am removing the tag and the "See also" link to Greek to me which does not mention the paradox.
As part of a project, myself and a few other users will soon attempt transform this page from stub to article, or least make it a bigger and better stub. Our first orders of business are the finding of sources and scoping out appropriate pages to link to this one (such as the page 'Index of philosophy of language articles' perhaps). Once we've read our sources, we'll add them and edit and enlarge the article's text.
This message is to let anyone who is watching this article know of our intentions, and is an invitation to help us as we go!
15 May 2013
Hi Everyone, I did some re-writes to the page for clarity and organization. I also put "code-talker paradox" in the see-also section of the articles about code talkers, philip johnston, and list of paradoxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgieyoshi (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Does not make cryptographic sense
Interesting that this article is said to be related to philosophy. Anyway... I am not a cryptographer but I have done work in cryptography systems for many years and have a decent understanding of the principles involved. With that background, the statement "a language mutually intelligible to each other but completely unintelligible to everyone who does not know the code" makes no sense whatsoever. Code talkers as they existed in history (the well known Navajo ones and the less known speakers of a number of other languages) did not in any way match that description. Nor, in fact, does any language. It is well known in cryptography that there is only one fully secure cipher system, and that is the one time pad. A system that is a language cannot be absolutely secure. I don't know what that does to this article. It puzzles me to have an article describing a nonexistent topic that does not say it is nonexistent. Paul Koning (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)