Jump to content

Talk:Wetwork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Wetworks)

2007-02-15 Automated pywikipediabot message

[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following reference that may be used for sources: at http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/19/messages/445.html

WET WORK An operation involving the shedding of blood. KGB term. [Cf. _Mokryye Dela_, the KGB department of wet work --masakim's note] From _The Dictionary of Espionage: Spookspeak into English_ (1986) by Henry S.A. Becket.

wetwork noun An espionage assignment that calls for murder. [From _Wetwork_, a novel by Christopher Buckley] From _Trash Cash, Fizzbos, and Flatliners: A Dictionary of Today's Words_ (1993) by Sid Lerner et al.

No mention of the West?

[edit]

Article seems to imply that only the KGB participated in assassinations. A ridiculous notion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.24.226 (talkcontribs) No, it's saying that's where the term originated. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet - the video game

[edit]

Just thought I'd mention the videogame Wet, which takes its name from the term 'wet work'. Don't know if it's worth adding to the article but I figured it's worth bringing up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.15.10 (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

verb - mochit'

[edit]

What about mentioning the verb 'mochit? Putin famously used it about Chechen terrorists - 'my ich zamochim v sortire'. Malick78 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

use of the term in a presidential campaign

[edit]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008. this is the head of the clinton campaign discussing wetworks, and specifying it doesn't mean pool parties in the vineyard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.207.96 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source. We'll have to wait for an actual mainstream news organization to report it. (they probably won't, considering the implications) 75.140.253.89 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no evidence Podesta used it in the sense of assassination, then it should not be here, especially as it's a primary source. Oberono (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]