Wikipedia talk:When can you cite a preprint invoking expert SPS?

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard
To discuss the reliability of specific sources, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the When can you cite a preprint invoking expert SPS? page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:SPSPREPRINT

The need for in-text attribution

When invoking the “Expert exemption” to SPS, I think caveated wording and in-text attribution is essential.

There is a huge difference between citing an SPS by professor Ima Expert to say: “Floobord particles amplify the effects of zazmatonic waves.<cite Expert SPS>” vs citing that same source for saying: “According to Dr. Ima Expert, preliminary analysis of models seem to indicate that floobord particles may amplify the effects of zazmatonic waves.<cite Expert SPS>” Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified the examples a bit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

much better. Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to reword further to avoid MOS:CLAIM in "claims to have determined"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. MOS:CLAIM are about statements akin to 'scientists claim vaccines work', where the 'claim' makes it look like it's up for debate when it's not. But here, we have a novel claim that hasn't gone under peer review, and the statement is uncertain and up for debate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]