Talk:Sweetest Day/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sourcing

I've started adding some references to this article. We still need some sort of sourcing for the critics statement. I've heard dozens upon dozens of people say this, but it needs a print/web source for the article. I only found one, and it was a Geocities site... so not exactly WP:RS. I'm leaving it in with a cite tag because I'm sure a source can be found.--Isotope23 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Comment: How about this one Isotope? 1 Or this one? 2 Or this one? 3 This one says it all: 4 Miracleimpulse 15:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Dubious tag added. Miracleimpulse 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, sorry, no... those are blogs, forums, and personal websites... not reliable sources.--Isotope23 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position. Note to feldspar, isotope, transfinite and "captain" It does not require a consensus to post the neutral facts about Sweetest Day on Wikipedia. Your continued editing out of neutral facts makes it appear as though you are spinning this page in favor of corporate interests. Miracleimpulse 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, well finally we agree Miracleimpulse... the fact should speak for themselves. The problem though is that you have not been letting them do so. Not to beat a dead horse, but many of the additions you've made to this article and to your WP:POVFORK "Sweetest Day Hoax" incorporate your own personal interpretation of the statements made in the sources you've referenced. I for one have no position other than everything in the article should be sourced, if the sources disagree the statements from all sources should be included, and the article should be written in an NPOV way (without making any external judgement whether or not this is a hoax). the problem is that you have not been posting neutral facts... you've been posting your POV and trying to form-fit the sources to fit that POV. That is where the problem lies.--Isotope23 14:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Neutral Facts About Sweetest Day

Talk about it if you must, but let the neutral facts about Sweetest Day speak for themselves. Miracleimpulse 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

<replaced text dump with link to user subpage where text already exists--Isotope23 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)>

• User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax
• Comment, there is no reason to text dump the version from your userpage here... If there are specific sections of facts you want to incorporate, lets start with discussing those sections or facts first.--Isotope23 15:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are cluttering up the page... let's make this managable by going through this section by section... no reason to recreate User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax here... it needlessly clutters this page.--Isotope23 15:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not submit that section for discussion. I want to discuss this:

<text dump removed again...--Isotope23 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)>

Comment: All of these neutral facts speak for themselves and should immediately be incorporated into the Sweetest Day article. Miracleimpulse 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm starting to go through this section by section. Calling your version neutral facts is a misnomer. And please stop text dumping from *User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax... there is no reason to replicate that page in full here when a simple link will suffice.--Isotope23 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Isotope, not only are you spinning the Sweetest Day page you are even spinning the discussion about it...in my opinion, we need administrative oversight here. Miracleimpulse 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that we need administrative oversight, then I would recommend requesting it. Bear in mind that a) you are the only editor asking for your version to be accepted, b) you've created a POV fork which had to be userfied, c) administrators take a dim view of being bugged about content disputes; that's what the dispute resolution process is for. Could you please list the Wikipedia policies, in detail, that you believe are being violated? Captainktainer * Talk 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: Let's start with removal of topics for discussion "captain." Miracleimpulse 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, by all means I would welcome a Request for Comment or any other input or oversight you might want to request Miracleimpulse. Your contention that I'm spinning this page is laughable since I've posted the link to the userfied version of the page multiple times. It's not about spinning... it's about the fact that your neutral facts are pure conjecture and original research based on the sources you've cited in your version of the page. I'm willing to work on a WP:NPOV version here, but at this point you'd ever be happy with any version other than your own. I take it since you removed my detailed criticism of the opening paragraph of your version, you don't want to discuss this?--Isotope23 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Correct Isotope. What I wish to discuss are the neutral facts, which you keep removing from this page and referring to as a <<text dump>> These are totally neutral and sourced facts:

• Comment, and yet you removed my criticism of the first section where I went through, line by line, and demonstrated why your contention that "these are totally neutral and sourced facts" is in fact incorrect...--Isotope23 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

<<removed dump from User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax>> A link will suffice. --Transfinite 17:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Miracleimpulse Origin of Sweetest Day section

see my comments in red--Isotope23 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Countless internet websites attribute the origin of Sweetest Day to candy store employee Herbert Birch Kingston. true, but already in the exisiting article News articles, editorials and advertising from The Cleveland Plain Dealer published in October 1921 and October 1922 recorded the origins of Sweetest Day as follows:

In 1921 a committee of 12 men, all confectioners, planned the details of The Sweetest Day in the Year, a new candy-buying holiday where 19,500 of boxes of candy were given by the Candy Industry to the "poor, forgotten and downtrodden" in Cleveland.

comment... this is essentially already in the current version of the article

The 12 Candymakers appointed as Sweetest Day in the Year Committeemen were: C.R. Canter, A.E. Barton, R.T. Fuller, J.J. Wilsdon, R.H. Sheehan, W.A. Katzenmeyer, A.A. Sarouch, Louis Hahn, W.J. Nichols, C.C. Hartsell (chairman of the Sweetest Day in the Year Committee), L. Narwood, and L.E. Gruber. [Note the total absence of any reference to Herbert Birch Kingston.]what is the purpose of this if not to push your POV? The absense of HBK is not proof of anything either way, except that he was not on the "Sweetest Day Planning Committee" Photos of the 12 Founders of Sweetest Day were first published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer on October 8, 1922....and they are never referred to as "founders" in that article... this is your own assessment.

Response The Sweetest Day in the Year Committeemen are referred to as Founders in this editorial: Image:Page 4 Full Page Sweetest Day Editorial.jpg

(Click on image to read text of the editorial.) ...which was included in the same Sweetest Day Section of The Cleveland Plain Dealer on October 8, 1922. The photo of the Founders should be moved to the top of the article, given that it is primary source information and that no photo of Herbert Birch Kingston exists anywhere as a primary source linking him to the origins of Sweetest Day in any way. The Founders should also be identified as confectioners, which they all were as will be demonstrated by further examination of primary source articles from The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Both the names and photos of the Sweetest Day in the Year Committeemen should be published in the article, since they are of considerable significance to the historical origins of Sweetest Day. Now, if you will please excuse me, this is not my job and I have to go to work. Miracleimpulse 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, actually... they are not referred to as founders. The exact text is "The Sweetest Day in the year came into being because the founders recognized the eternal tendency of men and women to become so engaged in the rush and whirl of life." There is no mention made of the "Sweetest Day of the Year Committee or any of the 12 members in this editorial. You are making an inference that "founders" = "sweetest day committee members" when in fact this is not implicitly stated.

Response Well Isotope, exactly who else is the editorial referring to as the founders? On page two of the 4-page Sweetest Day Section the 12 confectioners are identified as Cleveland Committeemen Who Arranged the Details of the Sweetest Day of the Year and Planned It's Success. This not only makes them founders, but it also blows the industry-generated hype about Herbert Birch Kingston out of the water. Miracleimpulse 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment At this point, If you don't see the logical fallacy inherent in your argument or the fact that your whole argument is based on inferences, then nothing I can say will change that. Come back when you have some concrete, WP:V, evidence.--Isotope23 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the image gallery, I still don't think you've proven your contention that these people are of considerable significance to the historical origins of Sweetest Day. (Comment Right, they only Arranged the Details of the Sweetest Day in the Year and Planned It's Success. Just because you can't see the considerable significance of this fact doesn't mean other Wikipedia readers won't be able to see it. Miracleimpulse 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)) I actaully was planning on adding the image gallery back into the article though, but I'd like to see the images renamed to "committee member" as there is still no evidence these are "founders". Whether or not this is a "Primary Source" is immaterial to its placement in the article (and the fact that "no photo of Herbert Birch Kingston exists anywhere as a primary source linking him to the origins of Sweetest Day in any way" still proves nothing). I don't think the top of the article is the right place though; it should go in the section of the article that currently has a list of the committee members. Referring to them as confectioners isn't a problem as that is solidly sourced by The Cleveland Plain Dealer.--Isotope23 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the image gallery should be linked through Wikicommons other than the image already existing in the article.--Isotope23 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of all the bickering?

OK, so this is a contrived pseudo-holiday that was instituted and continued in order to pursue a commercial agenda. Still, the fact that this promotion has managed to continue, though in a somewhat geographically-limited area, for so many years most likely makes it notable anyway. *Dan T.* 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Response The point is that Sweetest Day is an 85-year-old multi-billion-dollar industry-generated hoax and Sweetest Day 2006 is coming soon! Miracleimpulse 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Response - I have two main problems with article. The version Miracleimpulse prefers (found here) has a heavy anti-corporate (or perhaps just anti-candy/card industry) point of view, and it also contains quite a few unsubstantiated claims. For example, that version says "In the beginning (1921), Sweetest Day started out as simple consumer manipulation by the Candy Industry", but does not attempt to prove this. Even though this a somewhat obscure topic, it is notable and should have a good article describing it that follows WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you really don't like Sweetest Day, you can always celebrate the International Day of the Nacho (also on October 21). --Transfinite 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Ole! I'm working on incorporating the Cleveland Plains Dealer sources into the article (both the 1921 and 2005 articles). The sources themselves are valuable; it's the way they were being used to push unsubstantiated claims that I object to.--Isotope23 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Gallery

The image gallery is large, unsightly, and not terribly relevant - it completely destroys the flow of the page, particularly on Mozilla Firefox, and it really should go. Captainktainer * Talk 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you from an asthetic standpoint. I don't see that it adds much value to the page, but I'm not deadset against it either. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to resize a gallery... I've removed it and reverted to the list for the time being.--Isotope23 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed - I really think the list is more helpful. If the images are licensed under the GFDL, perhaps they can be moved to Commons, and we can put in the Commons wikibox - for people who want to see what multimedia is available (a la Encarta), that would be helpful. If they aren't licensed under the GFDL, then since they're not vital to the article they should be deleted from imagespace. Something doesn't have to be in Wikipedia per se to still be wiki. Captainktainer * Talk 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say that blurry images of non-notable people do not generally make an article better. Is there some information, esthetic value, or something else the pictures convey? I'd suggest keep it out per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of mugshots (yeah, I know WP:NOT doesn't actually say that :-) Weregerbil 07:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Celebrate Wildroot Week.jpg

Did you know that The Cleveland Plain Dealer also helped invent and promote Wildroot Week at the same time they were helping the Candy Industry invent and promote Sweetest Day? As Wikipedians, it is our job to report what happened, not decide what is pretty or relevant. Let the facts speak for themselves. Both image galleries should be included in the Sweetest Day article. Let readers decide what is relevant. Miracleimpulse 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is our job to decide what is relevant. A person may have a poodle. Someone may mention that fact in a newspaper article. Does that mean that the fact that the person owns a poodle belongs in an encyclopedia article about the tennis club the person belongs to? No. Similarly, a bunch of people were involved with this Sweetest Day claptrap. Does that mean that we need to have right there in the text, in a place that makes it very hard to follow the article, pictures of these people who otherwise did nothing else of note in their lives? No. If people really want to see the pictures of these guys, put the pictures in Commons and we can put up a Commons wikibox. In the meantime, the image gallery is huge and garish, and needs to stay out... and the Wildroot Week bit is completely irrelevant, and definitely should stay out. Captainktainer * Talk 21:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Tags

Dubious assertion tags were added to statements and references: Advertising websites like Retail Confectioners International do not constitute reliable facts or references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miracleimpulse (talk • contribs) 20:18, September 10, 2006 (UTC).

Reply - There is already a Disputed tag at the top of the article, so there is no need for individual dubious tags. Also, all the statements you placed dubious tags after are sourced. The source in question is more of a industry association than an advertising web site. Anyway, the article should reflect that point of view, neutrally. I think I'll take the dubious tags one at a time:

• Sweetest Day is a holiday celebrated primarily in the Great Lakes region and parts of the Northeast United States"
  • Why is this dubious? Every source I've seen says something to this effect.

• It is described by Retail Confectioners International as an "occasion which offers all of us an opportunity to remember not only the sick, aged and orphaned, but also friends, relatives and associates whose helpfulness and kindness we have enjoyed."
  • This is a direct quote from Retail Confectioners International, straight from their web site. It should stay, if only to represent their side of the story.

• The origin of Sweetest day is frequently attributed to candy store employee Herbert Birch Kingston.
  • I think the phrasing in the current article is a good way to present Mr. Kingston's part in Sweetest Day neutrally - the article doesn't out right claim he is the founder, it just reports what other sources say. --Transfinite 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment exactly. The point is to add sourced statements with the sources identified so readers can make their own determination as to the reliability of the information and sources.--Isotope23 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising propaganda. Retail Confectioners International posts this advertising propaganda on their website to sell candy. These statements have no primary source to back up the secondary sources. Since you obviously cannot provide a primary source for these statements, I am removing them from the article. Miracleimpulse 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Holiday Infobox Removal

Transfinite I expanded the infobox to match the information included in other holiday articles on Wikipedia, and you reverted the holiday infobox without saying why or even mentioning it. Here are the two infoboxes. I added nickname of the holiday, type of holiday, significance of the holiday, and observances of the holiday. I added question marks to the categories so one of you would fill them in, making a more complete profile of Sweetest Day. Instead you reverted the infobox. Obviously you did this because A) you didn't like the nickname of National Candy Day, B) Sweetest Day is an economic holiday and you didn't want to specify that, C) Sweetest Day has no real significance, and there are no real observances related to Sweetest Day. Your reversion makes it quite clear that the holiday infobox is being used for promotional purposes, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV policies. Therefore, I am removing the holiday infobox from the article. Miracleimpulse 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Who is using the holiday infobox for promotional purposes? You are not assuming good faith on the part of other contributors. Furthermore, you seem not to understand the overall infobox practice of omitting fields for which data has not yet been collected, with the exception of the aviation articles. Finally, your mass removal of content - sourced with trade-specific links - in your ongoing crusade to show that this is some kind of hoax or something was unwarranted. As such, I have reverted the deletion. Captainktainer * Talk 08:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The current infox box is fine. There is no evidence anyone refers to "Sweetest Day" as "National Candy Day"... and the other added lines are blank, meaning the are unecessary at this time. I've updated the article a bit, incorporating the Lubinger piece as well as actually adding text relevant to the Schmidt reference (sort of daft to have a ref that doesn't refer to any text).--Isotope23 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I removed the changes due to the question marks. You could fill in Type with Secular, and Observances is for holidays that are marked by "prayer or more solemn observances" (see Template talk:Infobox Holiday), so it is unneeded. The "Significance" is what we are discussing here, so I left it out. --Transfinite 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this? (I could photograph an ad from The Cleveland Plain Dealer calling it National Candy Day or just Candy Day if you like.) Miracleimpulse 00:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Stating the significance is "none" and type is "commercial", is a POV statement (and no other holidays have "commercial" as "type", even Valentine's Day), and observances is unneeded since this isn't a religious holiday. As for "Candy Day", no one has called it that in years. I don't mind it in the article itself (there are sources that link Candy Day and Sweetest Day), but the infobox should represent the current state of affairs, in my opinion. --Transfinite 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Agreed... one newspaper article calling it "Candy Day" or "National Candy Day" does not constitute a nickname... it's a protologism.--Isotope23 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day Today

How does it make you feel today, September 11, 2006, to know that American Greetings, Hallmark, Retail Confectioners International and the Candy Industry have promoted Sweetest Day to America on false pretenses 5 times since 9/11/2001? Talk amongst yourself. Miracleimpulse 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is getting ridiculous Miracleimpulse... if you have something of value to add to the discussion about the Sweetest Day article, then by all means please do so. Solicitations of personal opinions and feelings are irrelevant to the effort of improving the quality of the article.--Isotope23 19:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response I thought this was the talk page. You are avoiding the question. Miracleimpulse 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment right it is the talk page for the article, to be used for discussions that improve the article content. This is not a forum for off topic discussions... and might I add that it is a rather pointless question trying to create a link between 2 unrelated phenomenon;unless you have some evidence that links Al Qaeda to the Retail Confectioners International... now that would be interesting.--Isotope23 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response Not making a connection between the total loss of credibility of American Sentiment (90% of which comes from American Greetings and Hallmark) due to ploys such as Sweetest Day has proven tragic for thousands of Americans since 9/11/2001. Make the connection. And stop deleting the facts about Sweetest Day from this article. Miracleimpulse 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That, right there, is the greatest misuse of the word "tragic" I have heard in my life, especially on a day that a few thousand of my fellow New Yorkers and members of America's Defense Department were killed in cold blood because a bunch of fanatics decided they really freaking hated us. To suggest that another damned commercial holiday, which America has about eighteen billion of, is in any way comparable to that tragic event is not only unbelievable but insulting to the memory of my fellow citizens. How, exactly, does that improve the quality of the encyclopedia? Seriously... you need to chill. Your obsession with this holiday is starting to get a little frightening in its intensity. Captainktainer * Talk 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response Which came first: the terrorists (anti-sentiment) or Sweetest Day (loss of credibility)? Fake holidays like Sweetest Day make Americans look like a bunch of gullible idiots, and the companies/industries which promote them look like deceptive elitist greedy robber-baron capitalists. Hmmm...maybe this does have something to do with why the world hates us. If American Greetings and Hallmark used their creative energies to improve and upgrade American Sentiment instead of manipulating everyone into buying products for Commercial Holidays, the world might hate us a little less. Miracleimpulse 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine there's a lot of stuff that makes Americans look like idiots or worse to the rest of the world... and the same can be said about most other nations, peoples, and cultures too. Having silly contrived "holidays" to spur sales of stuff is probably among the least of these things. *Dan T.* 00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC Opened

I've opened a Request for Comment on this article to help solve the POV edit war. For ease, here are the 2 versions of the article being disputed: 1 and 2.--Isotope23 15:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The only dispute here is your insistence that the facts be left out of the Sweetest Day article. Version 2 contains all the information in version 1, plus a lot more verified sourced information and historical photos. You want the article sanitized in order to promote Sweetest Day, and this is not what Wikipedia is for! Miracleimpulse 15:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Miracleimpulse, the problem is that in the lastest round of edits you've appended the version (which appears to have a consensus) with your version. Much of what you've added is redundant with information already in the article or is based on conjecture and inference. The rest of what you've added here is a large amount of images (which are unnecessary, don't add anything to the article, and mess up the formatting...the images should be moved to wikicommons with a link in the article for anyone who wishes to view them in detail) and a list of companies who advertised in the Cleveland Plains Dealer Oct 8th, 1921 edition... which also adds nothing of any real value to this article. The version that you seem to feel is "sanitized" to promote Sweetest Day does nothing of the sort; Schmidt and Lubinger's research into the origins of the day are prominently displayed in the article (as is the fact that the 1st Sweetest Day celebrated in Cleveland was planned by a committee of confectioners) and the stated "goal" of the day is clearly attibuted to the Retail Confectioners International, which I think leaves it for any intelligent reader to discern for themselves the origin and meaning of this "holiday". I think in the desire to see your own version at this namespace you are missing the forest for the trees. Regardless, I'm content to let this go through RfC (or RfM if need be) and abide by whatever consensus can be achieved there.--Isotope23 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Miracleimpulse is adding original research and heavy editorialising. Also he is edit warring. All in all a textbook example of tendentious editing. Guy 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• A question: Should the YouTube video link and the mac.com slideshow link be removed, given that they are both self-produced by Miracleimpulse? Captainktainer * Talk 11:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I removed them; in Wikipedia:External links they fall under catgories #2 (being unverified original research) and possibly #3 (both being media produced by Miracleimpulse to push his POV, and the mac.com page being webspace that belongs to him) under the types of links to be avoided. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• That was my intuition, but I didn't feel that it was appropriate for me to remove them without consensus, given that I've gotten drawn into the dispute. Now that it's done I support the removal under Wikipedia policy, and will support their reintroduction if they come into strong compliance with criterion #2. Captainktainer * Talk 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry the rest of the links had to go too under #4: Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. Miracleimpulse 06:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have reverted your changes. In your zeal for this topic, you misread criterion #4, which requires that the links be added to promote the sites (read the first sentence of that criterion very carefully). They are not added to promote the sites in question; they are there to further illustrate the mainstream and corporate point of view concerning the holiday. Captainktainer * Talk 06:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mischaracterization of Herbert Birch Kingston

Who made these changes to Herbert Birch Kingston's 1930 Cuyahoga County, Ohio census form and why? Miracleimpulse 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Look at the bottom of the census form; it clearly says:
  

Col. 27
Employer - E
Wage of salary worker - W
Working on own account - O
Unpaid worker, member of the family - NP

Most of the people on the form are W, and there are a few O. What it looks like to me is the census taker decided he was an employer rather than self-employed, and corrected it on the form. --Transfinite 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments Thank you for the clarification Transfinite. I have amended the caption to reflect this information. With that in mind, it seems clear that there is definite mischaracterization of Herbert Birch Kingston's role in the origins of Sweetest Day on the parts of Hallmark, American Greetings, and Retail Confectioners International. There is still no primary source of information which links Herbert Birch Kingston to the origins of Sweetest Day in any way. The primary source information states that the details and success of the Sweetest Day in Year were arranged and planned by a committee of 12 Candymakers chaired by CC Hartsell, and this primary source information is being occluded in the Sweetest Day article by mischaracterization of the facts. All information on the websites of Hallmark, American Greetings, and Retail Confectioners International regarding Sweetest Day is advertising the intention of which is to sell Sweetest Day products, and this information should not be construed as fact in the Sweetest Day article. Countless websites tell the story of candy store employee and philanthropist Herbert Birch Kingston and his friends and neighbors originating Sweetest Day, but that story is neither verified or true. As it exists now, the Wikipedia Sweetest Day article does not convey the true origins of Sweetest Day and is hardly NPOV compliant. Sweetest Day was a promotion carefully planned and executed by the Candy Industry, and it should be reported as such in this article. On the first Sweetest Day (10/8/1921), the largest candy advertisement in The Cleveland Plain Dealer was for Whitman's Candies, and Whitman's Candies is not even located in Cleveland, but rather in Kansas City, home of Hallmark. Please amend the Sweetest Day article and remove all statements and references sourced to advertisers of Sweetest Day. Thanks again. Miracleimpulse 08:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the article clearly states "According to the newspaper it was planned by a committee of 12 confectioners, who distributed 19,500 boxes of candy to newsboys, homeless people, orphans, and others" which is what can be factually stated based on the sources provided. There is no mischaracterization there. As for the statement about HBK, there is secondary sourcing; there does not need to be primary sourcing. I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but that is the way Wikipedia works. The article as it stands right now is absolutely NPOV, which is why an admin removed the tags you put on the article. Besides, "...is frequently attributed to candy company employee Herbert Birch Kingston..." is not a statement of fact that he originated "Sweetest Day", it is a statement of fact that the creation of the day is usually attributed to him... which it is.--Isotope23 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.