Talk:Sweetest Day/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let the facts speak for themselves 

message: Talk about it if you must, but let the neutral facts about Sweetest Day speak for themselves. Miracleimpulse 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <replaced text dump with link to user subpage where text already exists--Isotope23 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title: '''The Neutral Facts About Sweetest Day'''

message: see my comments in red--Isotope23 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Miracleimpulse]] Origin of Sweetest Day section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the point of all the bickering? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image Gallery 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dubious Tags

message: 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)
thread_title: Holiday Infobox Removal

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sweetest Day '''Today'''

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  RfC Opened 

message: Image:KINGSTON 1910.jpg|Herbert Birch Kingston clearly listed his profession as advertiser on the 1910 Cuyahoga County, Ohio Census (click to enlarge image).
Image:KINGSTON 1920.jpg|Mr. Kingston also listed his profession as advertiser on the 1920 Cuyahoga County, Ohio Census (click to enlarge image).
Image:KINGSTON 1930.jpg|On the 1930 Cuyahoga County, Ohio Census Herbert Birch Kingston lists his profession as Proprietor (owner) of a Confectionery. Note the "E" in column 27 which indicates Mr. Kingston was an Employer. (click to enlarge image).
Who made these changes to Herbert Birch Kingston's 1930 Cuyahoga County, Ohio census form and why? Miracleimpulse 09:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mischaracterization of Herbert Birch Kingston