Talk:K&N Engineering

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How to make this article better?!

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updates to company information