Talk:International Association of Privacy Professionals

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Association of Privacy Professionals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210214458/https://www.governor.co.uk/news-plus-views/2015/april/does-privacy-need-a-new-language/ to https://www.governor.co.uk/news-plus-views/2015/april/does-privacy-need-a-new-language/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove "Primary Sources" Flag
In December 2012, User:AnomieBOT -- as later modified by User:Yobot and User:Sionk -- flagged this article as lacking sufficient secondary citations. At that time there were no citations. Today, there are 30 citations, the vast majority of which are to secondary sources of reasonable quality and reliability. In the few instances in which primary sources are cited, secondary citations are also provided. Per WP:WTRMT, I am proposing to remove the flag because the "issues has been adequately addressed." Before I remove the flag in the next few weeks, I welcome input, suggestions, and other feedback. Thanks!

Rayeverett (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to see many none primary sources, particularly considering most of the information is cited to someone from IAPP saying or claiming something. Maybe it needs an "advertisement" tag instead, because it's certainly not based on arms-length journalism. Perhaps, for a start, the list of available certification needs removing, it's basically advertising their services. Sionk (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Why are major newspapers, industry trade news, and scholarly journals not secondary sources in your opinion? WP:PRIMARY says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The majority of the citations fit exactly these criteria, where journalist or reviewers are providing synthesis of facts or their own opinions and analysis about the organization and its notability and activities. This is especially true of the discussion of the certifications, where reviewers and commentators are discussing how significant and notable they are across disciplines. Secondary sources discussing the importance and notability of the credentials themselves would seem to be entirely appropriate and exactly as requested by the flag. Except for one blog post (12), and the cites to the credentials (19, 21, 25), all of the other citations are secondary sources, and for 19, 21, and 25, each have multiple additional secondary cites. That's four primary sources out of 30 citations. If you're concerned that the "primary" descriptions of the certifications are also provided as cites, that's fair and could be removed. But if there's some other criteria for secondary sources that should be considered when researching citations, it would be instructive to review that. A good faith effort was undertaken to identify suitable secondary sources, and the amount of effort was not trivial, so it would be good to understand the basis of the complaint. Thanks again for your input and any insights you can provide. Rayeverett (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Updating article quality
I am updating this article's quality to B, based on the fact that the article is:
 * mostly complete, and does not leave readers wanting more information
 * free from any major problems
 * the references section is diverse and includes multiple secondary sources

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)