Talk:WARRIOR PRIDE

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.

The iPone port was done in collaboration with CSEC 87.115.97.57 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made the changes you have suggested, except that it was Android port that was said to be a CSEC collaboration. The iPhone slide doesn't mention CSEC. Please don't be afraid to edit the article yourself per WP:BOLD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

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 TM: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)

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. TM: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; talk 23:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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" TM: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)

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.