This article is disastrously disaster. 70.64.78.207 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Disastrously put. Actually, this page should simply be a redirect to Communications Security. The acronym deserves no distinct page. Any content on this page that is worth saving ought to be merged with the other article. I recommend that this be done sooner rather than later. I'll do it myself if there is no disagreement in a week or so (and if I don't forget). --Pat (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is exteremly useful in the current culture, related to the COMSEC documents and people. The compound word COMSEC is prevalent in the DoD culture with hundreds of secondary and tertiary words. Historically, it is originated from COMmunications SECurity Communications security; however, in the 21st century, the compound word is used without regards to its origin in thousands of pages of manuals and documents and by millions of personnel over the last fifty years. Another example is OK in the current culture; almost detached from its historical origin. Its taxonomy has created hundreds of terms, processes, devices, and concepts. Some of the main ones, related phrases and devices, are defined here to standardize the comprehension in reading the COMSEC documents and talking to people with COMSEC experience.--SamBBaran (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion is whether or not there should continue to be separate articles for Communications Security and COMSEC. I agree that COMSEC is an important abbreviation and should be represented at Wiki, but COMSEC can easily be redirected to Communications security, or the other way around. I'm asking if editors support the idea of merging the two articles and redirecting one to the other? I personally prefer keeping Communications security as the main article and redirecting COMSEC visitors to the main article. --Pat (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is poorly written, even with the new contributions. It actually seems worse to me. The headings make no sense. COMSEC as a separate article is unnecessary. COMSEC isn't a compound word btw; it is a short form of the expression communications security. Even if the term has a variety of meanings within the US intelligence community today, and I'm not sure that is the case, those meanings would originate in comms and ought to be listed in the communications security article, not under a separate COMSEC piece. I suspect the editors are confusing COMSEC and SIGINT, two sides of the same coin, as COMSEC typically involves no collection. The list of acronyms is too detailed and of no particular use in defining COMSEC unless the individual items are meaningfully described. Won't someone please make COMSEC redirect to communications security and take what is worthy from COMSEC over to the main article? --Pat (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposal edit
- Merge. COMSEC and Communications Security are clearly very closely related and should be explained in a single article. --m3taphysical (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)