This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
Talk
According to the Guardian, WARRIOR PRIDE existed previously.The two slides show that it was then ported to Android and iPhone. So WARRIOR PRIDE was probably previously used on other platform(s), probably PCs.
Like many such articles regarding this topic on Wikipedia, there are very few independent sources provided. In this case both sources refer back to claims made by The Guardian newspaper.
I've tagged this as ONE SOURCE
T:ONES as, like most Snowden claims, it seems to exist solely in (the imagination of?) the Grauniad and NYT newspapers (who are working in partnership on the Snowden claims). The only other source, ZDNet, simply refers back to the Graun/NYT. Whilst I have no reason to doubt whether it's true (and more to the point, if it wasn't, I'd want to know exactly what they *were* spending my tax pounds on, because this is *exactly* the kind of work I expect them to be doing), Wikipedia is not a repository of rumours nor conspiracy theories, and especially not of those stemming from only one source.
Andrew Oakley (
talk)
15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
User:Evilandi Are they the one source? They are
WP:RS so hardly "imagination". Looks like the Snowden is a
WP:primary, and the others are
WP:secondary (admittedly in an area where it's difficult to fact-check). Didn't look too close, but the two secondaries aren't exactly the same articles, and one isn't Guardian or NYT, so fully independent of the primary.
T:ONES "Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality." It's is/or almost a stub, and nobody is seriously questioning the
WP:V with this are they? Widefox;
talk23:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I am seriously questioning the
WP:V with this. Snowden is a single source and all the secondary sources refer back, solely, to Snowden. This is a textbook example of "One Source"
T:ONES. However,
Template:Refimprove is better than a revert war, and I take your point about this being stub(-ish). The article is now >18 months old, though, so if there were more sources they should surely have come to light in this article by now. Certainly this article can't hang around in its current poorly-sourced stub state until the end of a 50-year official secrets expiry. We will have to draw a line at some point, and I suggest that that point is now, being more than 18 months after publication; you may wish to defer that by a few more months or maybe a year, but not indefinitely. There is also the further problem with the independence of that single source; he appears to have taken money and hospitality from the subject's enemies. He's a man on the run doing whatever he can to fight extradition, so not a reliable source, no matter how reliable the Graun & NYT may be considered in respect of their other stories.
Andrew Oakley (
talk)
10:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Hang Nsa on on the phone and ask them to make an offical statement you can use as a source of the leaked criminal violation of fundamental rights they are commiting.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.
Talk
According to the Guardian, WARRIOR PRIDE existed previously.The two slides show that it was then ported to Android and iPhone. So WARRIOR PRIDE was probably previously used on other platform(s), probably PCs.
Like many such articles regarding this topic on Wikipedia, there are very few independent sources provided. In this case both sources refer back to claims made by The Guardian newspaper.
I've tagged this as ONE SOURCE
T:ONES as, like most Snowden claims, it seems to exist solely in (the imagination of?) the Grauniad and NYT newspapers (who are working in partnership on the Snowden claims). The only other source, ZDNet, simply refers back to the Graun/NYT. Whilst I have no reason to doubt whether it's true (and more to the point, if it wasn't, I'd want to know exactly what they *were* spending my tax pounds on, because this is *exactly* the kind of work I expect them to be doing), Wikipedia is not a repository of rumours nor conspiracy theories, and especially not of those stemming from only one source.
Andrew Oakley (
talk)
15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
User:Evilandi Are they the one source? They are
WP:RS so hardly "imagination". Looks like the Snowden is a
WP:primary, and the others are
WP:secondary (admittedly in an area where it's difficult to fact-check). Didn't look too close, but the two secondaries aren't exactly the same articles, and one isn't Guardian or NYT, so fully independent of the primary.
T:ONES "Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality." It's is/or almost a stub, and nobody is seriously questioning the
WP:V with this are they? Widefox;
talk23:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I am seriously questioning the
WP:V with this. Snowden is a single source and all the secondary sources refer back, solely, to Snowden. This is a textbook example of "One Source"
T:ONES. However,
Template:Refimprove is better than a revert war, and I take your point about this being stub(-ish). The article is now >18 months old, though, so if there were more sources they should surely have come to light in this article by now. Certainly this article can't hang around in its current poorly-sourced stub state until the end of a 50-year official secrets expiry. We will have to draw a line at some point, and I suggest that that point is now, being more than 18 months after publication; you may wish to defer that by a few more months or maybe a year, but not indefinitely. There is also the further problem with the independence of that single source; he appears to have taken money and hospitality from the subject's enemies. He's a man on the run doing whatever he can to fight extradition, so not a reliable source, no matter how reliable the Graun & NYT may be considered in respect of their other stories.
Andrew Oakley (
talk)
10:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Hang Nsa on on the phone and ask them to make an offical statement you can use as a source of the leaked criminal violation of fundamental rights they are commiting.