Talk:Call detail record

	Telecommunication portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass surveillance Low‑importance

	Call detail record is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

topic is misleading and incorrect?

This definition seems to mix two concepts. Yes, I'm sure there are _collections_ of CDRs but 'a CDR' is a Call Detail Record pertaining to a _single_ call. Look it up on Google using "define:Call Detail Record" (without the inverted commas).

This topic is misleading and incorrect and if I can find the right button I'll report it.

Rpineger 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

there are zero valid sources or external links - the external links are to commercial sites which fail WP:ELNO and WP:RS. As a potential search term, AfD is not the way to go. And as a reminder, it is the WP:BURDEN of any editor returning content to provide a valid inline citation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom and indented

Hi,

Please have a read of deletion policy, particularly WP:ATD-R, "If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect.". The article had good references which you deleted as spam https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Call_detail_record&diff=520788957&oldid=520573178, which they are clearly not. The article belongs in Wikipedia and is far from unsuitable. Alex Sims (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have disputed your change of an article being replaced with a redirect without a merge. Can you please attempt to discuss and reach a consensus on the article talk page before reverting to the redirect. Also why have you called reliable sources spam? Please retread WP:ATD-R Alex Sims (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on the talk page and explained there that the links are solely to unusable commercial sites. They are not valid as either reliable sources nor as WP:ELNO external links. And I encourage you to read WP:BURDEN and not restore challenged material without providing valid inline citations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links in question are:{/}}

*Cisco CDR documentation

*GR-1100, Billing Automatic Message Accounting Format (BAF) Generic Requirements

*GR-1083, Generic Requirements for Exchange Access Automatic Message Accounting (AMA)

These are on topic, technical manuals or abstracts thereof which define and expand concepts listed in the article.

I'm also concerned about the use of WP:BURDEN as a means of deleting an entire article without discussion and seems to be a method of avoiding WP:ATD-R

Alex Sims (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:BURDEN can be applied at any time by any editor. When the application leads to zero reliably sourced information in an article which has been tagged for its poor sourcing for 4 years, a redirect is a perfectly legitimate option.

2) if you feel there are specific facts which can be appropriately sourced from the external links to Cisco's corporate website or others that would meet the guidelines for a stand alone article you are free to make those edits. But be aware that the "independence" and "reliability"of the sources used will come under strict scrutiny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this listed for a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion project. I would rather not issue an opinion under the auspices of that project because that project requires that "If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." Though I cannot recall having had any direct interaction with TRPoD in the past, we've certainly hung around the same places here at WP and I'd just as soon not take the risk that we've either locked horns or traded kisses in the past, as I believe in avoiding the mere appearance of impropriety. That does not mean, however, that I cannot express my opinion here as just another Wikipedia editor and not under that project. (And I've left the request listed there so that someone else can give a 3O if they care to do so.) I believe Alex is right about the procedure here, but TRPoD is right about the content. The existing links are not reliable sources "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" mainly (but not only) because they're not third-party, they're self-published sources and they're not about the self-publisher, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Even if they were arguably about the self-publisher (which is not the case), #5 of the last-quoted section says that an article cannot be based primarily on such sources. Removal of them leaves the article unsourced. That leaves the article subject to being deleted unless reliable sources can be found. If a dispute arises over whether such reliable sources exist, I agree with Alex that the proper procedure is to nominate the article at Articles for Deletion though it would save the community time and effort if Alex simply looked for such sources before the article goes there. If he cannot find any, then the two of you can conclude that the redirect ought to stay in place. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O person here. What content, exactly, is in dispute? I don't see any recent reverts. Sandstein 09:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another uninvolved 3O editor here. The dispute is over a redirect. TRPoD redirected the page from Call detail record to Record (computer science) because the original article relied on primary sources. Alex Sims has contested the redirect because there was no prior discussion. Both editors are right: The article needs secondary sources, and a discussion should have occurred beforehand. In an effort to help resolve the dispute, I've searched and found a few usable secondary sources: Telecommunications and Data Communications Handbook published by Wiley Publishing, Business Telecom Systems published by Taylor and Francis, and The Telecommunications Illustrated Dictionary published by CRC Press. I hope that helps. Cheers, --xanchester (t) 10:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the privacy section

I could not find any reliable legal source asserting that law enforcement in the united States requires a warrant to obtain "Call detail records". I could not find any reliable legal source asserting that "Call detail records" are in fact protected by reasonable expectations of privacy . This section seems to be written as a personal opinion and interpretation on legal matters . Is there any reason to not delete this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsamuef (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]