" July 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's fine, but the point here is that there is no publisher's statement made about anything in that sentence. The idea behind having a resource is that we copy what the resource says instead of just listing them as a reference. If the resource says, ""Joe at worms"" then we write ""Joe ate worms"". About tarnishing any reputation, that isn't the point at all. And about accepted practices in the publishing world, this is Wikipedia and the accepted practices are covered by what we call ""policy and ""guidelines"" since those came about over a long period of time and through the process of consensus. About people keeping records of how many books were published, I think you missed the point there. Publisher's Weekly magazine has a statement about the number of books among other things for example. They are a secondary source. Do you see how that's different?  About the article on FIP, it hadn't any sources at all which is one of the reasons it was deleted. The only references which it had on the bottom were ""See Also"" references that pointed to this article here, and other articles which were also unsourced except for pointing to this article here. FIP and ACIM.ORG are the same entity. FACIM is also the same entity. This is known. Having the same board of directors, as well as sharing the same registered trademark ""ACIM®"" , etc., makes anything from either of those web sites primary sources.  20:51, 8"