Talk:K&N Engineering

Blatant advertising!

This is blatantly just advertising for K&N! Many of the comments made are factually incorrect, and purely mirror K&N's marketing points. No pages exist for any other performance air filter manufacturers, for good reason. This page gives no information that could not be obtained from K&N's own website!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.200.188 (talk • contribs).

Then improve the article! I am satisfied with the article's current state. Royalbroil 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article should be removed rather than 'improved' - it appears to go against Wikipedia's rules on business promotion - hence my comment for discussion! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.200.188 (talk • contribs).

Do you work for a competitor or something? I notice that you have only contributed one edit besides this article. I have contributed to thousands of different racing articles, and I am unbiased with this manufacturer. The article described the location of the headquarters, its main product and why the main product came into existence, then it briefly describes their main product. I don't see how this article is any different than other performance racing manufacturers such as Holley Performance Products, MOMO (company), or Edelbrock. K&N air filters are a major player in performance racing machines and some street cars. Please be very specific in your criticisms of this article and list specific problematic statements. Royalbroil 00:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not work for a competitor, but have previously had many dealings with K&N and other tuning products, but did not feel the article was unbiased or factually correct, and the page was merely advertising for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.200.188 (talk • contribs).

So do you still think the article is biased and needs editing? Royalbroil 02:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2008 cleanup

Some of the things that was removed are what makes it notable, in my opinion, like their success at the Baja 1000. Maybe that sentence could be reformulated. Much of what you removed shouldn't be very controversial, so a weak reference should be enough to reference it. "K&N air filters were first used by desert off-road racers." The first use of a product should be notable. "The extremely dirty conditions in off-road racing quickly clogged the paper filters that were available at the time." That sentence shows why an alternate filtration system was needed and developed. "Carl Judice drove one million miles with a single K&N filter." That story made national news in major news sources, but it was condensed into a sentence to not be promotional for the company. I don't see why their official website would be removed. Every article has one. You do have a good point about editing out some of the weasel wording. Royalbroil 13:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was blatantly commercial and wholly biased before my cleanup. Now it is considerably less commercial and only moderately biased, and can be built up in a more neutral and balanced manner. There is no provision in Wikipedia protocol for "weak references"; all assertions that are reasonably questionable must be verifiable by dint of reliable and appropriate references. Please take a few minutes to refresh your understanding of the standards of verifiability and source reliability. If you can find reliable and appropriate support for the assertions you want back in the article, by all means please reinstate them and add the relevant citations. The links were removed per Wikipedia's policy on external links. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:EL "What should be linked 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." This is the company's official website. They are known mostly for their air filter, so they decided to use their air filter product for their company's official website. You need to explain why this link to a reliable source was removed. The San Bernardino Sun is a reliable source, and it was used to source three sentences. It needs to be returned. Royalbroil 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All newspapers, including the San Bernardino Sun, contain both news and commercial content of various types. In some cases, it's easy to discern the two types of content from each other. However, this is not always the case. There are numerous methods commonly employed to present the one as the other. For example, advertisements are sometimes typeset and laid out to resemble news articles. The reference we're presently discussing cannot reasonably or accurately be called a news article, nor even a straight interview. It is a promotional puff piece for the benefit of a company in the newspaper's coverage area. Newspaper readership continues its sharp and accelerating drop as former readers turn instead to internet news sources, so pieces like this are frequently used to appeal to potential readers' sense of hometown loyalty and to curry favour with local employers (such as K&N, in this case). If you will take a few moments to reread the item, it consists of questions phrased specifically to provide a platform for K&N to promote and advertise themselves and their product. Please keep in mind that simply because something is printed in a newspaper, it is not necessarily written to journalistic standards of objectivity and veracity. Likewise, items in a newspaper may be sufficiently reliable for use as citations here on Wikipedia, but they are not necessarily so. This is in contrast to sources (e.g. blogs) that generally cannot be considered reliable sources.

You're right about what WP:EL says about links to official websites. I've put bacl the link to the company's site. However, the company's site cannot be considered a reliable source for any factually-phrased assertion regarding the performance, durability, sales volume, or benefits of the company's product. Objective, reliable third-party support for all such assertions is called for. A distant second preference would be phrasing some such assertions such that it is clear to the reader that K&N themselves are the source for the claim, along the lines of According to K&N, over twelve trillion of the company's air filters have been sold since 1969.

I am still bothered by the significant lopsidedness of this article, even with the most objectionably biased material removed. There exists good-quality evidence that some of K&N's major claims are false and/or misleading to some degree, and that evidence probably ought to be presented in this article, especially given the apparent willingness to repeat K&N's claims based on nothing but K&N's own repetition of the claims. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for the unchecked promotion or debunking of commercial products. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for spending the time to give a long response. I know how it can take to write up a long response like this. I now understand your points much better. I agree with what you're saying about requiring excellent sources if you feel they are controversial claims (I didn't feel they were controversial). Feel free to rewrite any sections with bad tone or those you feel are presented as factual when they are, in fact, composed by the company. I wrote the article, so I don't see them (an impartial view is usually able to spot this better). Any and all articles written about businesses are susceptible to biases from the company. Right or wrong, a lot of third party reliable sources use the information provided by the company to write their articles, so statements along the line of "According to K&N, over twelve trillion of the company's air filters have been sold since 1969" are possible, right or wrong. A controversy section is needed if what you say is true. I do know that their air filters have widespread use in many genres of racing and that their filters are sold throughout the U.S. at Walmart, which is why I wrote the article. Royalbroil 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're exactly right about the difficulty in finding unbiased information about commercial products that aren't subject to regulatory scrutiny. The maker's own claims tend to get picked up and published without question, and thus they get repeated so often as to become "common knowledge". A controversy section is certainly one way to handle this difficulty, though personally I prefer to try and avoid those whenever possible; they seem to be a focal point for...well, for controversy! Those who have a particular point of view for or against whatever is being discussed tend to see the controversy section as grossly biased against them. The result is often endless bickering on the talk page, edit wars which beget more edit wars, etc. Then again, the same can result from the lack of a controversy section. Balance is needed. I would like to try to see if we can create a properly integrative article without a controversy section, at least at first, as a trial. Do you agree?

Finally, thank you - thank you - thank you for the reasonable, calm manner in which this discussion has progressed so far. No sniping, no personal attacks, no revert wars, no running to any of Wikipedia's various mommies...this what we're in the middle of could be framed and hung on the wall as an excellent example of how this kind of article content and citation discussion ought to happen. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How to make this article better?!

Hello Talk Page - I'm wondering if I can jump in here & help to make this page better? Full disclosure - I work for this company. My goal is to improve the article where possible & to have a conversation with those involved with the page. Thanks in advance for your time & consideration. 1. The first reference takes you to a LinkedIn page. When I click this link it takes me to a blank page. Not sure if someone needs to log in to their LinkedIn account to actually view this? But what if you don't have a LinkedIn account? I think there might be a better page to reference. Here is a suggestion: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4470261 2. In the "History Section" - the statement "K&N manufacturers the majority of its product in-house." While this is a true statement it needs a citation. Since there isn't one to provide it would seem like removing this sentence would make this page better. Thoughts? 3. In the "History Section" - the statement "The company's largest overseas markets are Germany & Australia and it generates approximately 15% of its revenue overseas." This is not a true statement. K&N's largest overseas market is actually the UK. I'm not sure where 15% came from, but it's unsubstantiated. Can we update the largest overseas market & remove the comment about 15% revenue?

My next questions are regarding the last 2 references in this article, in the Products Section (2nd paragraph): 1. "However, independent tests dispute these claims ..." The 2 references cited for this sentence are problematic. After reviewing Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources it seems that both of these references are questionable. Both of these references listed are from self-published media (personal website, Internet forums). 2. Reference #3 Comparative automotive air filter flow & filtration tests- When you click on this link at the top of the page in small letters (just below the header) it states the following disclaimer "This is a contribution from AnthonyS member #1824 of our forum board. Showing some interesting results on air filtration/flow tests. I want to thank AnthonyS for all the great work in taking the time to perform these tests. Of course these are not standard ASTM tests and by no means represent any scientific certainty. He explains on how he performed his test and what he found as a result. This information is to be taken as nothing more and is not to endorse, promote, or imply which is the better but to share something interesting." This seems like it should be removed, as it is a post in & from a forum and is admittedly not a standard or scientific test of any kind. 3. Reference #3 ISO 5011 Duramax Air Filter Test Report- Is a posting found in the DieselBomber forum as posted by Oilfield_Mafia. He is reposting a "report" that was prepared & posted originally in another forum called Dieselplace.com. Again, since this originated in a forum and is a "self-published" piece of research it doesn't seem like the best information to reference to.

I look forward to your thoughts & comments. Thank you group.

207.218.14.135 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)mgooldringe

Lots of good points! This article really needs a strong improvement from reliable sources, like you have stated. Do you have any other sources that are independent of the company? I searched for Autoweek and didn't come up with anything. Forums are no good and I removed the sentences attributed to the unreliable websites. Royalbroil 03:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have had a tough time locating independent sources of information as well, but I will continue to dig and if I come across anything I will share with Wikipedia. Again I appreciate your time and feedback on this article.207.218.14.135 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Reliable source?

I'm wondering if I am incorrect in my original understanding of what a "Reliable Source" is? And would appreciate if it could be clarified. After reviewing Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources it seems that both of the references in the "Criticism" section are questionable. Both of these references listed are from self-published media (personal website, Internet forums). Reference #5-Comparative automotive air filter flow & filtration tests- When you click on this link at the top of the page in small letters (just below the header) it states the following disclaimer "This is a contribution from AnthonyS member #1824 of our forum board. Showing some interesting results on air filtration/flow tests. I want to thank AnthonyS for all the great work in taking the time to perform these tests. Of course these are not standard ASTM tests and by no means represent any scientific certainty. He explains on how he performed his test and what he found as a result. This information is to be taken as nothing more and is not to endorse, promote, or imply which is the better but to share something interesting." This seems like it should be removed, as it is a post in & from a forum and is admittedly not a standard or scientific test of any kind. Reference #6-ISO 5011 Duramax Air Filter Test Report- Is a posting found in the DieselBomber forum as posted by Oilfield_Mafia. He is reposting a "report" that was prepared & posted originally in another forum called Dieselplace.com. Again, since this originated in a forum and is a "self-published" piece of research it doesn't seem like the best information to reference to. I understand that there are criticisms around any product, but these sources are not reliable (and admit as much in there headers). Please let me know what your feedback is. Thank you. 207.218.14.135 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

I doubt these sources and I don't consider the "sources" / test methods to be reliable at all. But on the other hand, I don't think that the criticism section should be removed altogether. I'd like to see what User:Scheinwerfermann would have to say about it. I'm not very critical of the K&N product and the one in the photo currently has been used for over 100,000 miles in my ride. But on the other hand, the criticisms do seem legitimate. I wish some more reliable sources would be found. Boiling it down to one sentence -> Without anything better to back it up, it should be removed per WP:VERIFY. Royalbroil 00:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to speak up, Royalbroil. I have a large qualm with what this present situation looks like. From where I'm sitting, I see a K&N employee eager to remove material from the article that does not cast the K&N air filter in a positive light. That is an obvious conflict of interest. With all due respect to your lengthy history of good contribs, RB, it looks like you might be in a position to allow personal feelings to nudge you in a particular direction regarding the validity of K&N's claims—please note carefully, I am not saying you are being influenced by what sounds like your own positive experience with K&N filters; per AGF I must assume you are not. I am saying your comments here put you in a position to create the appearance of being potentially influenced in that manner going by your comments here on the talk page. So there's that.

Moving to the disputed refs themselves: I don't think they can both necessarily be dismissed quite so readily as you and our K&N employee here would like. For one thing, ASTM is certainly not the world's only source of valid test protocols. Offhand I can think of numerous other such sources with long-established reputations for test protocols widely held in high regard. ISO, UL, SAE, UNECE, and others. Beside that, there are test protocols developed in-house by engine manufacturers. Then still further, there are tests developed by entirely separate entities (e.g., Consumers Union) whose protocols and results are nevertheless widely and highly respected. I recall a large test of oil filters they did some years ago; their test protocol was not in accordance with an SAE, ISO, or ASTM protocol, but it was nevertheless defensibly scientific and cogent, and its results probably had an appreciable level of validity. There is usually more than one valid way to test whatever we might want to test, and sometimes different test protocols can give different but equally-valid results. It's important to remember that.

The one external link (presently ref #5 as I type this) to the DIY air filter tests doesn't look as though it could survive as a source even under the broadest reasonable interpretation of SPS. That said, it is difficult to find fault with the material itself—the deficiency isn't in the content, but in its noncompliance with our standards for what's acceptable support for an assertion. I agree it can't support assertions in the article text, but I don't think that necessarily makes it entirely unacceptable for inclusion in the article; perhaps it should be demoted to the "external links" section.

The other external link (presently ref #6 as I type this) is much more difficult for me to reject. This is the source of my unease with the K&N employee's gunning for it; its location on the internet might serve as a convenient justification for its removal, but I think it is a disingenuous one. The content of this source is fully apposite to the question at hand. Not only is ISO 5011 (an upshot of SAE J726) a recognised test protocol promulgated by not one but two highly reputable organisations, but this specific instantiation of an ISO 5011 test is quite transparent. Right upfront we are given the test protocol used, the facility the test was done at, the machinery used for the test, the name of the test operator(s), and the affiliations and associations of the parties involved in organising and running the tests. The test procedure is spelled out in step-by-step detail and results are presented not only graphically, but also in tabular form with actual recorded numbers. If this were printed on sheets of 8-1/2 x 11" paper and put out by SAE or GM or Testrand or (etc.), there would be absolutely no question of its suitability as a source; the one and only objection that can be raised is where it happens to be available. I think that objection is a picayune one, overwhelmingly countervailed by the apparent quality, completeness, and transparency of the content itself. To say the same thing from the opposite perspective: I have seen information of much lower quality and much murkier transparency and much more questionable origin accepted without question as support for assertions in a Wikipedia article, simply by dint of being printed on paper and available by writing a cheque to whoever paid for the print job.

I think it is incumbent upon us to carefully consider the intent of the rules we follow here, and hew to them in that spirit. I am sure the K&N people would prefer if nobody ever found or wrote anything negative about their products. But our job in writing this encyclopædia is to describe the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. If we reject good, solid support for assertions on nothing but a relatively trivial technicality, we are failing in our duty. (I mean what I say on my talk page: I have retired. I felt this particular matter important enough to log back in after a long hiatus and speak up.) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at things here by Royalbroil, and while it's early morning and I haven't been caffinated yet, I can speak up with regards to reference #6. While the content does indeed appears to be from a source that, if directly sourced from, wouldn't be questioned in the least, its presence in a forum post makes it unacceptable as a source. Now, if the forum post included, say, scanned pages from a printed report, it would be possible to cite it as if it were the orginal report (because in all respects, it would be). What the citation appears to have, instead, is text and images from the original report - and this is where the problem comes in, for while we might wish assume good faith on the part of the transcriber, we cannot prove that the data has not been manipulated in some fashion between the original report and the forum posting - if not by the actual poster, perhaps by another, third party in between the poster and the original report. As we cannot verify that the data reliably reflects the content of the original, reliable source, it cannot be used as a citation. Even if the poster is an established expert in the field in which the post's subject is, it's not a reliable source and can't be used as a citation (I once attempted this on an article about fast attack craft, and had the added ref promptly removed, and I've come to understand why). So, if I may speak as an uninvolved party in this discussion, (albiet one who was asked to take a look-see by an involved party), it's my opinion that neither reference #5 or reference #6 are suitable for use as references on Wikipedia.

Now, that said, that doesn't neccessarily mean that the sentence they're citing needs to be promptly deleted. Simply adding a {{citation needed}} tag for now would be fine - if there are in fact reputable third-party tests that establish these claims, they should be able to be found in reliable sources (trade journals, perhaps), and as this is not a WP:BLP, there is no requirement that unsourced material be removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate everyone weighing in on this discussion. While I understand that my position is a conflict of interest, I assure you I am simply looking for clarification when it comes to how Wikipedia pages are formed, what Wikipedia rules (in this case when it comes to reliable citations) are followed and how they are interpreted by the users of this page. If there is in fact reputable third party test results that establish the claims found in the forum posts I would be much more comfortable with there use here as citations.

Sure, the manufacturer of any product would prefer it if no one ever found anything wrong with their product. I simply asking that when something is published and cited making certain claims that it come from a reputable source.

Thank you again to everyone who has commented and I'm looking forward to the final outcome. 207.218.14.135 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Repeatedly deleted reference

Noticed this morning 10/8/2013 that references to the "Spicer Report" - a report that was published originally in a Forum - was referenced again as a citation. Based on the conversations above, and my understanding of Wikipedia's explanation of reliable sources - Forum posts do not qualify as reliable sources. Previously added was the "citation needed" tag at the end of the Criticism section. I am removing the reference to the Spicer Report (again), and placing the "Citation Needed" tag back, until a reliable source is added. Thank you & look forward to any comments. 207.218.14.140 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

It looked like a legit source, but if it isn't, go ahead and remove it. I'm not really sure either way. Best case scenario would obviously be to find a better one. :-) James^x12345 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jamesx12345. I appreciate you looking at this. I left you a message on your talk page - feel free to ignore! Thanks again.207.218.14.140 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Oh, dear. Jamesx12345, you seem to have misread the discussion rather completely. It's not that the report is unacceptable, it's that the previous source of the report (a partial posting on an internet forum) was unacceptable as a citation. Having seen the discussion on here, I looked at the forum post and recalled the report in question from my time at MIRA. MIRA's library is now shuttered to the public for lack of staff funding (a pity; it contains vast amounts of fascinating information going back many years). But MIRA boffins had free access to the whole of the library and its bank of photocopiers. To be clear: the original report was not "originally published on an internet forum", it was originally published in paper form and it (or parts of it) appear to have been posted on an internet forum. A direct photocopy of the entire original paper report is the basis of the citation added and (now) restored; that is within Wikipedia's requirements. 24.87.88.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I just read the most recent comment added here from user 24.87.88.125 and I have a question. I'm wondering why citation #5 does not actually link you to the "official" and "original" Spicer report. If it is in fact a reliable source than shouldn't whoever reads this entry be able to click the citation #5 link & go to this original source & read the original document. If it is available outside of a forum post for people to access than I would understand this argument. Thank you for further explaining your position. 207.218.14.140 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Erm...I do beg your pardon, but your query doesn't seem to make heads or tails of itself. Surely you aren't labouring under the misapprehension that clickable access is a criterion under WP:RS and/or WP:V...? It is not; as you can see at WP:SOURCE, the requirement is for a "published source", which is defined as "made available to the public in some form". Perhaps the original report in question is available somewhere on the internet, or perhaps it is not -- either way, it doesn't appear to matter in our present case, as Wikipedia policy doesn't require it to be. I've elucidated the source whence I procured the report in question, at which time it was a publicly accessible document in a publicly accessible library, and whilst the closure of the MIRA library is lamentable, it does not retroactively undo the public access that formerly existed for its holdings -- the same way you get to keep hold of a photocopy of a book you made at any other library that subsequently happens to close or burn down, etc. Your copy of that book doesn't magically vanish simply because the particular specimen of the original item you copied may no longer be publicly available. 24.87.88.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and clarification 24.87.88.125, but I'm not sure that the argument you provide above does anything to clarify or further elucidate the root of the problem with the citation. And perhaps this is a good time for Jamesx12345 to jump in as editor of this page. After reading Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source under WP:RS and WP:V it appears that the burden of proof is an important factor in listing anything as a source. Am I or anyone who comes to this page simply supposed to take your (or anyone's word) that citation #5 once appeared somewhere as a publicly accessible document? Based on the links to Wikipedia's reliable sources information & verifiable sources - Wikipedia very clearly states "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It would seem the burden of proof lies on you - that you must provide proof that this report was in fact printed somewhere other than on a blog post, which is the only place its being published has been seen. Thank you. 207.218.14.140 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Oh, golly. Mister or Misses 207.218.14.140, basically your whole comment, but especially the fact that you think there is a specific particular "the editor of this page," displays your apparently complete ignorance of how Wikipedia works. There is no "editor of this page"; Nobody owns any Wikipedia page! I know this might sound like a personal slam, and I'm sorry, that's not how I mean it. Ignorance is curable, the cure is education, and the educational material is right here on Wikipedia.

The answer to your question of whether we're supposed to take 24.87.88.125's word for it is yes, because an important basic rule here is that by default we assume good faith. For example, I assume that you are acting in a good faith effort out of a genuine concern for the improvement of the quality of this article, and not (for example) in a bad faith effort to promote the interest of the K&N Company in having a Wikipedia article with a weak or nonexistent "Criticism" section.

In this case, there is no such "burden of proof," as you put it, on 24.87.88.125, or anyone else, regarding the provided citation. It looks compliant with WP:RS, and the description of its provenance is plausible, and (again) there is no requirement for clickability of references. All that is required is that they are "published", i.e., made available to the public in some form. That's it. If you think the source is dubious, there are several different tags you can apply to get additional editors to look into it, but continuing to delete the reference is not appropriate.

Please go spend twenty minutes reading random Wikipedia articles and you will find loads and loads of cited references that are not clickable and cannot be "proven" to exist to the standard you seem to want to apply. That standard is not Wikipedia's, and from here it looks like your understanding of WP:V and WP:RS are also somewhere between "nonstandard" and "flawed", so please (please?) drop this particular stick at least temporarily until you take the time to understand what those policies mean and how they are applied. Thank you. 174.21.139.109 (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I might be totally off-topic, but I found an article by the name of "Debunking the K&N Myth – Why OEM is Better" (not reliable, and linking to it triggers the spam filter) after a quick google search. This in conjunction with the other ref might be suitable? I would be of the opinion that there are more pressing things in this article needing referenced, and a {{Better source}} could be added as a reminder. I don't know much about tuning cars, so don't really consider myself qualified to comment. James^x12345 16:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, 174.21.139.109; my contributions here are in accordance with your same understanding of Wikipedia rules. 207.218.14.140, thanks for taking the time to read the precepts, but I do fear you're probably mistaken in your understanding of quite how they're applied. You're right that the Verifiability requirement bars statements based on personal knowledge, hearsay, et cetera -- the encyclopedia is meant to be built up with statements that can be supported by reference to reliable sources. Where you appear to go awry is in trying to recursively apply WP:V to WP:RS. TTBOMK, that's not done. WP:V applies directly to the content (the statements), not to the sources. It's an interesting idea, to be sure, and I can certainly see how this encyclopedia might be more reliable if there were strict requirements for every reference to be readily accessible and/or verifiable on the internet, but at the same time it would severely cut into the availability of sources (because the world is much bigger than the internet, and the OK sources available on the internet are only a subset of the OK sources available in the world), thus constraining the growth of the encyclopedia. That's my guess as to why WP:V is not applied to WP:RS in the way you seem to have in mind. This really is a discussion best suited for the boffins and wonks devoted to developing and debating Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile here on the K&N page; fortunately we haven't got to reconcile two sources saying opposite or dubitable things, we've got one source (so far) saying plausible things. As additional reliable sources, saying whatever they say, can be found, they'll surely add to the breadth and quality of the article. 24.87.88.125 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and clarification 24.87.88.125, but I'm not sure that the argument you provide above does anything to clarify or further elucidate the root of the problem with the citation. And perhaps this is a good time for Jamesx12345 to jump in as editor of this page. After reading Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source under WP:RS and WP:V it appears that the burden of proof is an important factor in listing anything as a source. Am I or anyone who comes to this page simply supposed to take your (or anyone's word) that citation #5 once appeared somewhere as a publicly accessible document? Based on the links to Wikipedia's reliable sources information & verifiable sources - Wikipedia very clearly states "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It would seem the burden of proof lies on you - that you must provide proof that this report was in fact printed somewhere other than on a blog post, which is the only place its being published has been seen. Thank you. 207.218.14.140 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.14.140 (talk)

Repeating yourself word-for-word, in apparent refusal to acknowledge points made, is not productive. 24.87.88.125 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the links to Wikipedia's reliable sources information & verifiable sources - Wikipedia very clearly states "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Please provide proof that this report was/is published somewhere other than a forum. Thank you.207.218.14.140 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Looking forward to a reference for the Criticism that is verifiable in some form. Thank you.207.218.14.140 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

I'm trying to maintain my assumption that you really believe you are acting in good faith by repeatedly removing a reference that is compliant with Wikipedia's applicable rules, but it's getting harder. Right here on this page you've repeatedly demonstrated: — large-scale lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia structure (such as referring to one individual as "the editor of this page" and misapplying content regulations where reference regulations hold sway), — unwillingness to read supplied links and engage in discussion, — unwillingness to acknowledge that your understanding of how it works might not be fully correct,

and—perhaps it's do do with your having admitted (up above on this page) that you work for K&N, the subject company of this article and therefore you have a clear conflict of interest—you either don't or won't understand the BRDC principle. All you've shown yourself willing to do is repeat yourself and remove content you personally don't like. That just isn't how it's meant to be done. 24.87.88.125 (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hullo, third opinion here. WP:SOURCEACCESS states you can use a source even if it is unaccesible at this point. It is an assumption of bad faith that 24 is making the whole thing up. Use the reference. BTW, 207, you have demonstrated a remarkable inability to get the point. KonveyorBelt 23:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed WP:SOURCEACCESS, thank you for supplying. It states the following, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." IF the Spicer report requires payment - where does one go to purchase it? If the Spicer report is only available in university libraries or other offline places - please advise where it might be procured or where those places might be. The only place this report is accessible is in a Forum, which is why is seems like a problematic source. Thank you.207.218.14.140 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on use of a source):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on K&N Engineering, Inc. and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Sources do not need to be accessible online, and yes, User:207.218.14.140, you are expected to trust the person adding the source. Sources are only required to have existed in some format, at some time in the past. You seem to be confused about what the source really is. You keep referring to the "forum" as the source. The forum is only one place where the source has been published. The source is actually the report. And the fact that the report was published on paper, and held in a library, is enough to qualify it as a source and make its use here on Wikipedia appropriate. You don't have to be able to buy access from anywhere, that's just an example in WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't matter that the library has since closed and the report is not easily accessible. It exists, and other users have seen enough of it to use it to add some relevant information to the article. I encourage you to accept that WP:CONSENSUS is against you at this point, and to stop removing this source from the article. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for jumping in as a 3rd party. I'm wondering why the citation is now linking to where this Spicer Report was originally "published" & the only place it was published - a forum. My understanding from reading the "credible sources" information provided by Wikipedia is that forums are NOT credible. The Diesel Bomber forum which is where the Spicer Report was originally published & the only place it was published is a forum (I apologize, the Spicer Report was also published on Bob the Oil Guys forum as well). And from the information provided by a number of people before you - forums are not credible or reliable sources to cite. Which is why referencing this report is wrong. Have the rules since changed? Thank you.207.218.14.140 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Hello again, 207. It looks like you're still confused -- perhaps because you appear to have no interest in a genuine understanding of Wikipedia's rules and how they apply. The source itself -- the original study -- is acceptable per Wikipedia's rules and consensus. That means it stays in the article. Wikipedia's citation markup includes an archive-copy parameter, which is used to improve accessibility in cases where the original source document is difficult or impossible to access. That is the case here, and the use of this archive copy provision addresses your complaint of lack of accessability. The internet forum is not the source, it is merely hosting a copy of the source. The difference between the source and the host was explained to you ↑up there↑ by Livit just a couple of days ago. It appears you haven't yet taken the time to read and understand that cogent explanation; please do so now.

A couple of other thoughts: (1) Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it". You work for K&N Engineering, Inc. Please keep in mind (and remind your boss) that Wikipedia's coverage of your company is not to be shaped by your company's preferences on the matter. And (2) just in case you might possibly have been thinking about logging in from another computer so changes appear to have been made by someone else, or asking someone else to make your change for you, be aware that both are prohibited (and trackable) by Wikipedia, and users found to have done so can find themselves blocked/banned completely. 24.87.88.125 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I love Upton Sinclair, thank you for referencing. But it all comes down to Spicer publishing this report only on DieselBombers.com - a forum. Which according to Wikipedia - forums are not credible sources. Thank you.207.218.14.140 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

Indeed, but there has been a LOCALCONSENSUS on this page to keep the source, and generally consensus overrides rules and policy. KonveyorBelt 17:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not only is there a local consensus, but, as has been repeatedly explained by more than one participant (and consistently disregarded by 207), the report in question was not published only on a forum, which is why it's acceptable. There's no breakage or bending or overriding of any source-validity rule in this case. What there is, is an employee of the K&N company trying to torpedo a valid reference that doesn't go along with his company's promotional claims. 174.21.164.142 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, look at there: from time to time, such as in this case, the system actually works like it's supposed to: those who would damage the encyclopedia by abusing the rules to push their paid views (such as an employee of K&N, in this case) get shut down by consensus with a little help from administrators. That is nice to see. 69.46.168.130 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's very interesting that citation #5 takes readers to a forum. And despite Wikipedia's ruling that forums are NOT credible sources this has been deemed "acceptable" by the most recent individuals involved in this conversation. Despite the fact that earlier on - this 'debate' swung the other way and a 3rd party reviewer agreed that in fact - it was best to leave the criticism section, but remove the Forum citation until a more credible source could be attributed.207.218.14.140 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)mgooldrindge

forums are not reliable sources. we cannot use primary sources of forums to declare that "controversies" exist. the controversy must be covered by third parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

and local consensus cannot override Wikipedia-wide basic content policies such as WP:RS / WP:OR / WP:NPOV and WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputed-section

Referencing a Forum as a reliable source/citation seems problematic. The "Criticism" section needs a citation(s) that follows Wikipedia's outlined rules: Self-published sources (online and paper) Shortcuts: WP:USERGENERATED WP:USERG WP:UGC Main page: WP:SPS Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.14.140 (talk • contribs) 18:07, December 5, 2013 Added by Konveyor Belt

Actually, the source being cited cannot be used as the article stands - because regardless of whether it is recognised as 'reliable' it doesn't support the article content. The article currently states that "K&N's claims for their air filters have been the subject of some controversy, with 3rd-party tests finding that K&N's cotton gauze filters are less efficient and let more dirt into the engine than factory-equipment paper filters, and that they become increasingly restrictive as they are coated with particulates." The source says nothing about 'controversy', and accordingly cannot be cited for an assertion that there is a controversy. And nor does it support the assertion that 'third-party tests' (plural) have found anything. All it could be cited for is the statement that a test was carried out. And furthermore, it should be noted that the test was carried out on behalf of someone who states that they were on a "crusade" against aftermarket filter manufacturers, which has to raise questions about objectivity. There may well be controversy. The filters may be of questionable merit. But we can't use this source to say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the source being cited is perfectly acceptable (see extensive discussion above). All that needed doing was the wording needed changed to reflect the facts in evidence. That has been done, despite the suppression of the source what K&N employee 207.218.14.140 obviously wants, which is for this article to contain only neutral-to-positive statements about his employer. AndyTheGrump, it's fine to place the "disputed" tag on a section, but it's not fine to place the tag and then erase the section all by yourself without consensus. 24.87.88.125 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

no it is not acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A source can only ever be cited for what it states - if there is a 'controversy', find a source that says so. And not a forum. A credible third-party source. As for the 'extensive discussion above', it might have been better for those involved to ask for advice from people familiar with Wikipedia policy earlier, rather than arguing over irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Updates to company information

Hello all - I am a representative of K&N (not the same employee who has previously been engaged on this page), and would like to propose a few edits to the current page to update some factually incorrect information. I am not overly familiar with Wiki editing processes, so please forgive any ineptitude as I catch up.

Proposed changes:

1. The company was founded in 1969, not 1964.

2. K&N manufactures over 12,000 parts, not 6,000. [I'm not sure if there is any source other than our own website that could verify this, but if it cannot be verified independently, the whole mention of product number should be removed for accuracy].

3. K&N operates facilities in England, the Netherlands, and now China.

I appreciate your feedback and time. --207.218.14.140 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Update 4/19: The aforementioned changes have been made. Will revert if inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.14.140 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC) 207.218.14.140 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)