Talk:Operation Olympic Games

Untitled
Provocative revelation by NYTimes Staff Writer David Edward Sanger! Obviously embargoed until 1 June 2012, but why? Did USCYBERCOM intercept and collect, during Spring 2010 until Spring 2012, what the USG needed to present to the UN with respect to Iran's nuclear weapons? Sanger has appeared on PBS News and PBS Washington Week in Review during the week after his NYTimes revelation. Un-Impressive. I don't get it. Why this Journalist-Nerd? Interesting that this Topic is Too Hot To Handle for Wikipedia! It is very reminiscent of what former SecState Alexander Haig once said that that the ..."Ship-of-State leaks from the Bridge..".Mnemosyne (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The manual noting of the previous editor was by Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest deletion of this article and will add tag later
The article present fantastic story which was told by undisclosed source which actually was cited in one RS as undoubtly true and valid. Would require changes in pharsing and sourcing or deletion of this article.--85.64.90.2 (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is important. At first, I thought this would just redirect to the STUSEX (?) and that other worm. Now I see they are the minor part of the story and this is the cream filling in the donut. As the story comes out, we can expect this article to grow. Delete it? I would vote no. But even if we do it will come back when more sources are available. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a little odd that this is a separate article from Stuxnet. Stuxnet was the name given to the malware sample by malware researchers, since they obviously didn't know what its creators called it. Operation Olympic Games is said to be the code name for the operation used by those who carried it out. So it might be logical for the article on Stuxnet to say "Stuxnet, also known as Operation Olympic Games...". I guess the idea of separating them is that while Stuxnet is the article for the malware, Operation Olympic Games is the article for the effort to create and deploy the malware. I dunno. 75.166.153.74 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

H chevy silverado for sale in the morning and I will be there at the
same 41.235.57.140 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't we drop the "likely"?
"Operation Olympic Games was a covert and still unacknowledged campaign of sabotage by means of cyber disruption, directed at Iranian nuclear facilities likely by the United States and Israel." This sentence strikes me as very odd, especially the use of the word "likely". What's odd about this, aside from how well established that point seems to be, is the fact that the same sources (e.g. Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power by David Sanger, The Secret History of the Push to Strike Iran by Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzettiby of The New York Times, the film Zero_Days) which say that there was such a campaign of sabotage, and that it was called Operation Olympic Games, also say that it was called that by those who carried it out, agencies of the United States and Israel. For example, Zero_Days quotes unnamed sources from NSA and CIA as saying that NSA and CIA together with Israeli collaborators created and deployed the malware known to the world as Stuxnet and that "we", i.e. NSA and CIA, called that same malware "Olympic Games".

What's so very odd about the way that the intro to this article is written currently is that it says that "Operation Olympic Games was a covert and still unacknowledged campaign of sabotage by means of cyber disruption, directed at Iranian nuclear facilities", i.e. it is stated as unqualified fact that disruptions to Iranian nuclear facilities were caused by a campaign of sabotage, and that this campaign was called Operation Olympic Games. And yet this campaign was "...likely by the United States and Israel". If all the sources upon which the existence and content of this article is based were mistaken, and the campaign of sabotage was not of US and Israeli origin, then such campaign was almost certainly not called Operation Olympic Games (since it's those same sources that said it was called that). So why the certainty about one part of the premise and conspicuous casting of doubt about the other, integrally connected, part of the premise?

By the way, at numerous places throughout the body of the article, it is declared to be fact that the campaign of sabotage that is the subject of the article was carried out by the United States and Israel. See for example, the entire section called "History". The only place where this is viewed as in doubt is in that introduction.

These very odd editorial choices feel as though derived from a perceived obligation to treat as uncertain any fact not officially acknowledged by the governments themselves (a notion unsupportable by reference to any Wikipedia policy).

Or maybe not. Maybe it's just a collection of very odd editorial choices. Either way, it doesn't seem appropriate.

75.166.153.74 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)