Talk:Cover-up

Definition: "Legend (espionage)

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)

Where are the lists from?

I can't see a reference to the lists of what happens in a cover up. It seems like someone's own ideas rather than just a comprehension of current knowledge. I might be missing something, but if I'm not, Wiki isn't the place for original theories on topics. Beyondheat (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"False alibi" deleted

An addition of mine was deleted with some bad faith and nasty personal attacks thrown into the mix. (This is a repeat of many similar attacks against me by TTAC over the years.)

Let's look at the content that was deleted and not improved, which is a violation of the WP:PRESERVE policy:

My addition:

Use a false alibi

The deletion and edit summary:

Undid revision 1355964938 by Valjean RV WP:COATRACK by an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to develop the Cover-up article, but rather to promote his personal pet theories using unreliable opinion sources. Not only are these sources NOT reliable for the information in question, only the first cited source (Rubin 2018) uses the term "coverup" or "cover-up"; the other two sources failed verification.

Let's analyze this:

• A "false alibi" is often part of a cover-up, so my addition was clearly on-topic:
  • A false alibi is a deliberate lie designed to shield someone from criminal liability by placing them elsewhere during a crime. Because it requires a fabricated story and often the complicity of others, it serves as a cornerstone of an intentional cover-up.
• Did I absolutely have to use three sources when only one might work?
  • That can be discussed. A collaborative editor would have discussed this, but not one who is engaging in a poorly-disguised wikilawyering effort to whitewash and cover-up. The irony! The addition and just the first source could have been kept, but instead we see a cover-up to protect the orange one. That's unwikipedian behavior.
• "personal pet theories"
  • What pet theories? This is about a proven fact, not a theory, and the sources speak for themselves. They document a famous "false alibi". Note that the specific example is not spelled out here, only the sources are used. The entry itself ("Use a false alibi") is about as neutral as possible. Any other sources than ones which mention Trump would have been accepted by TTAC, so we're looking at an editor who is violating NPOV by allowing their "editorial bias" to affect their editing, sources be damned.
• "unreliable opinion sources"
  • The sources discuss facts and opinions written by notable journalists in RS. There is nothing wrong with using such sources. Since their words are not quoted, and only the sources are used, there is no need for attribution.
• "NOT reliable for the information in question"
  • ??? The "information in question" is "false alibi". They are notable journalists writing in RS, and they are discussing "false alibi". What more could one ask?
• "failed verification"
  • The subject of the specific entry is "false alibi", and all three sources document a famous example of a "false alibi", so they definitely do not "fail verification".

@TheTimesAreAChanging: please explain yourself. This is one more example of your crusade against my edits which always happens to coincide with you deleting properly-sourced information about Trump's bad actions and lies, no matter how well-sourced. We do not allow that here. That's whitewashing and PROFRINGE behavior. This seems like yet another example of your own NPOV-violating partisan pet peeves. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Valjean, I reverted your edit because the sources you cited are not reliable, failed verification, and (with one exception) do not even mention the topic of this article (i.e., Cover-up). A neutral, good faith editor seeking to expand or improve an article, in this case Cover-up, would perform a search using neutral search criteria on an accepted search engine, focusing on top-tier sources, which for Wikipedia's purposes are those published by an academic press. For example, you might go to Google Scholar and search "cover-up definition" or "examples of cover-ups".

This is obviously not your approach to editing. Instead, you cherrypicked three old 2018 opinion columns, only one of which includes the term "coverup" or any equivalent, in order to make an unsourced allegation by way of innuendo that Donald Trump engaged in a "cover-up" to hide a secret "pee tape" featuring himself and Russian sex workers. This is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's core content policies, including WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RSOPED, the latter of which states: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". As to your other points:

Valjean asks us to "Note that the specific example is not spelled out here, only the sources are used." However, the whole reason that Valjean makes the derogatory insinuation about Trump via innuendo, rather than by directly stating it, is that he knows there is not adequate support for the claim in reliable sources, but he wants to make it anyway. In context, this is hardly a mitigating circumstance.

Valjean writes: "They are notable journalists writing in RS, and they are discussing 'false alibi'. What more could one ask?" However, while the cited sources may be discussing a "false alibi," (although not the concept of false alibis in general, as Valjean incorrectly implies), they are not discussing a Cover-up (with the exception of Rubin 2018 who uses the term "coverup" once) and, as opinion sources, "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (which is generally understood to mean that such sources should not be used without in-text attribution to the author).

Although his comments are vague and it is somewhat unclear what he is referring to, Valjean seems to contend that either the existence of the "pee tape" or at least the existence of a cover-up and false alibi designed to obscure the existence of the "pee tape" is a "proven fact": "What pet theories? This is about a proven fact, not a theory, and the sources speak for themselves. They document a famous 'false alibi'." Initially, I did not ground my edit on WP:BLP concerns, and I do not know if Trump in fact provided a false alibi regarding a 2013 trip to Moscow to former FBI Director Comey or anyone else. Nevertheless, per WP:RSOPED and WP:BLP, the sources cited by Valjean are not adequate to assert that Trump gave a false alibi in wikivoice. In fact, the sources themselves do not appear fully confident in the claim: Rubin 2018, for example, uses hedges and qualifiers such as "Trump's apparently fake alibi" and quotes earlier reporting about "Trump's apparent claim to then-FBI Director James B. Comey ... " [emphasis added].

While a few (generally historical or non-controversial) "examples" are listed, this article is not List of cover-ups. Valjean is trying to inject tangential or off-topic material to create a WP:COATRACK, which the community generally agrees is "a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else. ... the existence of a 'hook' in a given article is not a good reason to 'hang' irrelevant, undue or biased material there." Valjean regularly cites WP:PRESERVE and does so again in his comment above, but we are not required to "preserve" unsourced or poorly-sourced content, WP:BLP violations, or biased WP:COATRACK material. (This is how we ended up with a Steele dossier article that is larger than our articles on World War I and World War II combined, almost all of it authored by Valjean, and containing much problematic content.) In a similar case, Valjean recently attempted to introduce material relating to the alleged private conversation between Trump and Comey to Consciousness of guilt, citing Trump's alleged "false alibi" alongside "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" from Hamlet as a famous example of "consciousness of guilt" from history and literature, which is about as clear-cut an example of WP:COATRACK as I've ever seen.

"A false alibi is a deliberate lie designed to shield someone from criminal liability by placing them elsewhere during a crime. Because it requires a fabricated story and often the complicity of others, it serves as a cornerstone of an intentional cover-up." There are no sources cited for any of this. If Valjean could devote his time/energy to finding proper sources for relevant, on-topic statements like this, that would be far more productive than whatever he is hoping to achieve with WP:POINTY WP:COATRACK edits like the one I reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This whole reply is a COATRACK attack that tries to drag in a whole lot about Trump, when Trump is not named in these four words I added: "Use a false alibi". Using a false alibi is often one part of a cover-up. That's all there is to it. I used sources to a famous example, and from that TTAC has blown this up to make it look like I wrote something on the page that attacks Trump. Well, the topic of the Cover-up is not Trump, so I did no mention him. This repeated mention of him above is all from TTAC's mind, especially that part devoted to opposing what I might think and know about Trump. That does not belong here. It's way off-topic.

It is not my fault that TTAC is not aware of the well-proven, far from mere opinion, fact that Trump repeatedly used a very specific false alibi that was quickly debunked, even by his own bodyguard and his own tweets. Trump claimed he did to spend even one night in Moscow during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant. In fact, he was there for one and one half nights. He arrived in the early morning of Friday, Nov. 8, and left early Sunday morning, Nov. 10. He spent the whole night of Nov. 8-9 in Moscow, part of it in his hotel room. His own bodyguard testified he was there. Trump's lies and alibi were very specific, targeting the only night he was provably in Moscow the full night, and claiming he was not in Moscow that night, while admitting he was in Moscow part of the next night. That last part was true. How convenient. It was a childish type of lie, and many RS have debunked it.

TTAC doesn't seem to know that, and that's not my fault. It's not some opinion, fringe theory, or conspiracy theory. There are abundant RS that document it, but it is not the topic of the Cover-up article, so I didn't mention it on the page. The three sources just document "false alibi" as an example of a commonly used element in a cover-up.

BTW, I'd have no problem using only the Rubin source from WaPo. There is no question it is on-topic and verifiable for both "cover-up" and "false alibi", and it can be done without mentioning Trump on the page, which is the way I did it. I never mentioned him.

I would gladly provide all the documentation, but that COATRACK does not belong here, just as TTAC's huge diatribe COATRACK-mentioning-of-Trump above does not belong here. (That's a huge Streisand effect moment, bringing Trump's false alibi to the attention of everyone here! Now they too wonder what he was trying to hide. The false alibi made James Comey become a "maybe peeliever".) Instead, I can provide the evidence to TTAC elsewhere.

Note that there has been no edit warring, so anyone is welcome to restore the content, even if it only uses the Rubin source from WaPo. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

"It is not my fault that TTAC is not aware of the well-proven, far from mere opinion, fact that Trump repeatedly used a very specific false alibi that was quickly debunked, even by his own bodyguard and his own tweets." It certainly would not surprise me if this happened, but if it is "well-proven," then I'm not sure why Valjean needs to cite unreliable "Opinion" blogs that employ careful hedging language such as "Trump's apparently fake alibi" [emphasis added], but I digress.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Valjean asked me to take a look at this dispute, and I'll offer a third opinion here, for whatever that's worth. I've looked at the edit and the revert. All three of the cited sources are behind paywalls for me, and I'm not involved enough in this subject to look behind those paywalls, but this is what I can see. All three sources come from publications that are unmistakably reliable sources (Washington Post, New York Times, Vanity Fair). Two of the three sources have authors identified as opinion writers on their bylines; those two authors are also the subjects of BLPs here, and so can be considered notable (ie, experts) for our purposes. For sourcing the assertion that a false alibi can be part of a cover-up, it is reasonable to cite sources that reflect the analysis of the author of that source, because the content under consideration is an analysis of what can sometimes happen in the course of a cover-up. (Are there any reliable sources reflecting the opinion that false alibis are not typical features of cover-ups? I don't know, but it seems to me to be counter-intuitive that such an argument would be made.) I think there's a case to be made that the best kind of source would be a scholarly analysis of the cover-up phenomenon, in which data are reported and analyzed that demonstrate the occurrence of false alibis. That would be best, but the cited sources are potentially good enough, especially since the proposed text makes no claim about how many cover-ups include false alibis, only that cover-ups including false alibis have happened.

There is also the issue of whether or not there is WP:SYNTH in using these sources. I agree with the argument that, to be useful here, the source should include explicit mention of cover-up, although it could instead include explicit mention of something synonymous with "cover-up". Because of the paywalls, I haven't checked this for myself, but I think that sources should only be cited if they do this. In other words, don't use a source that is about false alibis unless it explicitly relates false alibis to cover-ups or a synonym. Perhaps, that might mean just citing the first source, based on discussion above, and omitting the other two.

I think both of you are personalizing the dispute, in the comments above, and I want both of you to focus on the content and not on one another. I've looked through the edit histories of the page and the talk page, going back to 2020. Valjean has made a small number of edits here prior to this dispute, but I see no edits by TTAC prior to the revert yesterday, which happened pretty soon after the initial edit. The revert edit summary referred to Valjean as WP:NOTHERE, which was not necessary and is a severe violation of WP:NPA. I don't know what the prior history was, but that edit summary was out of line. Because the content of the edit makes no mention of Trump – saying only "Use a false alibi" – Trump is irrelevant to this discussion.

My advice is to restore the edit, but perhaps make some sort of changes in the source[s] cited. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

"Perhaps, that might mean just citing the first source, based on discussion above, and omitting the other two." That's fine with me.

My main point is that those four words ("Use a false alibi") I added are good content. False alibis are indeed often seen as a part of a cover-up. I had that exact source handy when this article pinged on my watchlist. I figured I could quickly and easily improve the article by adding those words, and as always, with RS. That is not NOTHERE behavior, so that NPA was really unfair. It was an assumption of bad faith.

I figured that would be enough. I very carefully avoided mentioning Trump as that would have detoured the article into a coatrack situation. No need for that. I just used a famous example documented by many RS. Examples from the most famous/notorious person on earth are fair game. In such cases, we should not resort to obscure historical examples.

I agree that my reaction to that NPA in the edit summary was less than ideal. I was too easily triggered. I'd like to keep this on-topic and stick to the subject, which is not Trump ("Trump is irrelevant to this discussion.")

While we always welcome scholarly sources, they are almost never a requirement, except for certain aspects of MEDRS (and possibly some other scientific topics). Other mainstream RS, including attributed opinions, are allowed. When an opinion is essentially factual or exposes a lie, then it's even more valuable (than a boring fact-only source), as such opinions show how a fact, and lies about it, have been received by mainstream writers and subject matter experts, and we really, really, really!! want that type of content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems like "false alibi" fits with the terms but I agree with the questions regarding why we need what do look like COATRACK references. It seems like a better idea is to use the piped link here False Alibi which is part of the Alibi article. Springee (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Springee. It's been awhile. Nice to see you here. I like your suggestion. Otherwise, I have never heard of a reference being considered COATRACK when it was on-topic. I think that's a misuse of the term COATRACK. This is a case where whitewashing goes deep, even to the references used, and when Trump isn't even mentioned on the page at all. Strange situation. I'm backing off. I know when I'm not welcome, and Wikipedia is a decidedly toxic place for me.

As I indicated, feel free to improve the article. Your idea makes sense. It's just sad that it is a severe NPOV violation in the form of an "editorial bias" (Search NPOV for those words.) to protect Trump (not referring to you) that is the reason. Trump's thin skin and teflon nature extends to how we apply PAG. That's just wrong on so many levels. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a rather random article for me. I don't recall what links I followed from the BLPN Steele discussion to get here. I can see how you had those sources at hand based on other work and I think false alibi does fit into this topic. But I think there are likely less controversial examples that could be used (any number of homicide cases where a perp offers an alibi that later is shown to be false), or even just a dictionary definition. This one looks interesting as it's actually studying the topic (found using keyword search) . Springee (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I promised @TheTimesAreAChanging: to provide the evidence. Take a good look here. It won't take long to read it:

• User:Valjean/Sandbox/False alibi

Then feel free to use that talk page and ping me. Point out anywhere I've gotten it wrong. That's entirely possible. That way we keep the discussion off this page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• I've made this edit: , restoring the entry, but only using the one source. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Sources to build out article

which is already in the article looks good and is available from TWL. I'm not having much luck finding decent sources actually describing what a cover-up is and the specifics parts or types. We might be in a WP:NOTDICT situation, and maybe this would be better as a list of cover-ups? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

. . . Don't tell anyone, but I asked chatgpt to help locate some sources. There's probably enough there to get something sourced put together. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There's also Concerted Ignorance: The Social Construction of Cover-Up which may be available on sci-hub. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Using most of those sources I've removed the long-term unsourced and synth stuff and replaced it with sourced information. There might be more in those sources to fill this out a bit more, but I still think it might be better as a list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the list of "alleged cover-ups" might be better removed from the page. It puts us (Wikipedia) in the position of implying that dubious accusations might be encyclopedic, without any explanatory text (sourced to secondary sources) that would provide context about the allegations. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, although there's probably some where the alleged cover-up is noteworthy, e.g. Roswell and Jimmy Savile. Would be fine with requiring high quality secondary RS to demonstrate that, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

As for sources, doing a Google Scholar search for "cover up theory" gives a bunch of promising looking results: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be spending most of my high bandwidth wiki time drafting, so I won't be able to do much for a few weeks. Think we should just remove the alleged section for now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I just did. Some or all of it can obviously be added back if editors want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)