Talk:Christine Caine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christine Caine. 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/20140213002228/http://www.womenoffaith.com/community/members/ccaine to http://www.womenoffaith.com/community/members/ccaine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222130115/http://elainefisher.com/about/meet-the-board/bio/nick-and-christine-caine/ to http://elainefisher.com/about/meet-the-board/bio/nick-and-christine-caine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908193723/http://www.anzrsai.org/system/files/f8/f4/f6/f53/o313//Baum.pdf to http://www.anzrsai.org/system/files/f8/f4/f6/f53/o313/Baum.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright infringement case

There seems to be an ongoing attempt (see revisions done in late 2018/early 2019) to keep information about the copyright infringement case from this article. I note it was reported upon in Publishers Weekly as well as The Christian Post. The lawsuit was settled but the end result was changes to the works in question to either credit the person suing or to change the wording (at least according to the articles). The bit was removed with the comment of "unverified biased information". In what way is Publishers Weekly not providing verified information? --Erp (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources you site do not tell both sides of the story. This is an indication to me that they are biased and likely do not contain the full truth. Without investigating in detail both sides of a legal matter, which it does not appear to me that Publishers Weekly has done, one cannot possibly provide verified, unbiased information. As a result, these biased sources should either be removed or further supporter with the full truth of the matter at hand. TruthChecker777 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to think the full truth isn't already being presented, especially considering how limited our article's coverage of the incident is. I'm not sure how you would have more than one side to the story when all our article says is basically "There was an accusation. A settlement was reached." Neither of those statements seem to be in dispute. The Christian Post article notes that they attempted to reach Caine for comment but were unable, and the Publisher's Weekly article says that her publisher did not respond to a request for comment. News doesn't stop being news just because one party hasn't talked to the sources. If you have additional reliable sources with more information please share them here. Squeakachu (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually there are more than two sides to the story since everyone involved will have a version. Wikipedia practice is to go with reliable sources and Publishers Weekly counts as reliable when it comes to the publishing world so it is their story that can be used. Other reliable sources may have published different stories in which case they can also be cited to show conflicting (or explaining) stories. So are there other reliable sources giving different stories? The other question is whether it is notable; being sued and then settling is notable in the life of someone whose main claim to fame is as an author. --Erp (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@TruthChecker777: If you have a reliable source with a different viewpoint, I'm more than willing to add it to the article since I suspect you as a new user can't edit the page while it is temporarily protected. --Erp (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Roy's Report reliable?

One reason for some of the recent editing on this page in regards to the copyright infringement charge is the recent Roys Report interview with Scott, the person accusing Caine and her publisher of having infringed her copyright. The current information is all sourced to well established media sources; however, Roys Reports is less well established though has broken several stories over the past few years. The question is whether Roys Report articles can be used as sources. Julie Roys has worked and been trained as an investigative reporter; the reporting seems to be reliable and it has been used as a source elsewhere within Wikipedia. She does have an evangelical Christian slant but then so have the subjects of most of her investigations. Thoughts? --Erp (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)