Talk:Cryptome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cryptome web-site seems to have a pro-IRA slant... —Ashley Y 03:16, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Pronunciation
Perhaps a dumb question: for a long time I've wondered whether Cryptome is suppoed to be pronounced as crypto-me or cryp-tome. Anybody know? Wmahan. 02:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's the second. A tome is a large book, and this website holds alot of information, just like a large book.--Planetary 04:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Highly questionable reference in entry
You are citing wagnews in regards to cryptome? I see building wikipedia's credibility is going to be a long, hard process. There are thousands of internet cranks spewing unsupported, unsubstantiated opinions on news sources they do and don't like. Why not mention every one? Wagnews lists just about every antiwar news outlet in their cia-fakes puff piece, with no proof whatsoever. Here are a few others listed: Democracy Now, Fair.org, monbiot.com, antiwar.com, blackboxvoting.com. None of the wikipedia entries for these other web sites are tagged with "has been cited by the blog www.wagnews.blogspot.com as a CIA fake." Ironically, wagnews and Fintan Dunne don't have a wikipedia entry. Did the attention-seeking self-promoter Dunne post this here himself? You wouldn't take that from Marc Perkel. Also, the disclaimer from wagnews does not match repeated assertion "...as a CIA fake." Here is the CIA-Fakes disclaimer from the wagnews site:
Note: We do not contend that everyone associated with these websites are knowing intelligence operatives. Some have been professionally manipulated, others merely misled. In any event these are promoting the psyop agendas and disinformation themes of the covert controllers. This is also not meant to be a fully comprehensive listing of all the fake websites.
The disclaimer indicates that the list of CIA Fakes, is itself, fake in its accuracy.
[edit] Justin Berry link
As my last edit was deprived of a comment when i tipped a beer bottle over at my enter key, I will discuss it here. Is the link not to a current issue causing a stir on the cryptome site? The very fact that people are scrambling to remove it justifies it as a controversial item, and so it deserves mention. Tomyumgoong 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think not. John Young added a page on cryptome that mentions Wikipedia; he (editing as 64.131.188.102, as shown by the date and time of the screenshots at http://cryptome.org/justin-berry.htm) also added a copy of the comment to the Justin Berry article, as well as the comments in the Cryptome article. Before calling this a "stir", I would expect someone else to be involved; for example, he was cited in misc newspapers about the MI6 files or the "Eyeball" series. For now, it looks only like someone added an unencyclopedic comment to this article, and it got removed several times (rightly so, in my opinion). Schutz 08:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- We should not include this (yet). Schutz is right; this needs to be an issue outside of the insular world of Wikipedia and Cryptome in order for it to be encyclopedic. — Matt Crypto 10:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Cryptome as several new articles a week. We can't add them all, and this one does not appear to be generally notable. -Will Beback 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- We should not include this (yet). Schutz is right; this needs to be an issue outside of the insular world of Wikipedia and Cryptome in order for it to be encyclopedic. — Matt Crypto 10:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page protection
I've protected the page to stop the revert war. Please discuss the issues here and try to reach an agreement. When you're ready to start editing again, either leave a note on my talk page or request unprotection at WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- There seem to be no disagreement in the discussion above (although Tomyumgoong has not added anything since it was started); would it be possible to unprotect the page ? I am planning to merge article Cartome into this article as soon as it is unprotected. Many thanks ! Best, Schutz 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources, verifiability?
This article needs more sources. Currently the majority of references go straight to Cryptome itself - the only third-party source is a single opinion column in the Reader's Digest. This is not very good; we shouldn't really be relying primarily on the site itself as a source. Are there really no other reliable sources? If there aren't, we might well be on dodgy ground w.r.t WP:V. 81.86.133.45 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's fine. The article describes what the site is about, and then links to those particular sections that it's describing. I see no problem with verifiability. --Planetary 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
