Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:58, 30 November 2006

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 August 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

This Sweetest Day Article Reads Like A Promotional Advertisement

The introduction is straight from the promotional websites of Retail Confectioners International, American Greetings and Hallmark. The purpose of these websites is to promote Sweetest Day. Most of the references for this page are also promotional in nature. Here are sourcing guidelines. The following statements in the article are questionable:

• Sweetest Day is a holiday celebrated primarily in the Great Lakes region and parts of the Northeast United States (with Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, New York being the biggest Sweetest Day cities ) on the third Saturday in October. 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."

• The origin of Sweetest day is frequently attributed to candy company employee Herbert Birch Kingston as an act of philanthropy.

• This tradition now largely involves giving small presents such as greeting cards, candy, and flowers to loved ones. While it is not as large or widely observed as Valentine's Day, it is still celebrated in parts of the United States, despite persistent allegations of being a Hallmark holiday.

These statements should be properly and reliably sourced, or removed from the article.

Again, American Greetings, Hallmark, Retail Confectioners International and other Sweetest Day websites are not reliable sources for facts about Sweetest Day, because they are promotional in nature.

There is plenty of sourced/factual information about Sweetest Day out there. Just look here. Miracleimpulse 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, first off Miracleimpulse, don't blank a talk page when you add comments... it is bad form. Second, I removed the tags (I presume you added). This has already been exhaustively covered and I'm sure you will dispute this, but the section is reliably sourced. The "disputed" tag in particular was originally removed by the admin who blocked you for POV edit warring on this article diff. This article is absolutely neutral POV and is not advertising as it explicitly states the source of all statements as well as contains a section demonstrating several sources who dispute the Herbert Birch Kingston popular mythology of this day. If you disagree I strongly encourage you to submit this article for a Rfc or RfM.--Isotope23 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Let's take these one at a time...
  • Sweetest Day is a holiday celebrated primarily in the Great Lakes region and parts of the Northeast United States (with Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, New York being the biggest Sweetest Day cities) on the third Saturday in October. 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."
    • There is plenty of sourcing on when and where the holiday is celebrated. The second statement from Retail Confectioners International is sourced and clearly attributed as well. Just because you don't agree with thier statement does not mean it should be removed from the article.
  • The origin of Sweetest day is frequently attributed to candy company employee Herbert Birch Kingston as an act of philanthropy.
    • Mr. Kingston is named as the founder of Sweetest Day on several websites. If you can find a source that specifically says he did not found Sweetest Day feel free to add it.
  • This tradition now largely involves giving small presents such as greeting cards, candy, and flowers to loved ones. While it is not as large or widely observed as Valentine's Day, it is still celebrated in parts of the United States, despite persistent allegations of being a Hallmark holiday.
    • What is wrong with this part?

--Transfinite 17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Isotope/Transfinite: First off, Isotope/Transfinite, I did not blank the talk page. It was archived according to Misplaced Pages guidelines . Second, this article is definitely disputed and has been for some time. No concensus has ever been reached in the discussions on these pages. Most of the references on the Sweetest day page are advertising websites which are not reliable sources for factual information. Further, these advertising websites list no primary source for the information being promoted. The article is not NPOV compliant because of these sources. Commercial sources cannot but result in commercial bias. Finally, the Herbert Birch Kingston story of the origins of Sweetest Day is not popular mythology. It is industry hype intended to deceive and sell product.

Let's take the article one line at a time:

• Sweetest Day is a holiday celebrated primarily in the Great Lakes region and parts of the Northeast United States (with Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, New York being the biggest Sweetest Day cities) on the third Saturday in October. 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."

First of all, Sweetest Day is not a holiday; it meets none of the criteria for being considered a holiday. Sweetest Day is not a holy day, nor is it set aside for observance by any nation or culture. Furthermore, Sweetest Day is not recognized by the states of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois or New York as an official holiday and is not mentioned on their websites. Nor do the websites of the City of Cleveland, Detroit or Buffalo recognize Sweetest Day as an official holiday. There is an excellent reason for this: Sweetest Day is not a holiday. Sweetest Day is an annual promotional event sponsored by industry and media.

• The origin of Sweetest day is frequently attributed to candy company employee Herbert Birch Kingston as an act of philanthropy.

No primary source of information links Herbert Birch Kingston to the origins of Sweetest Day. American Greetings, Hallmark and Retail Confectioners International do not source the statements on their websites about Herbert Birch Kingston in any way. Further, news articles from The Cleveland Plain Dealer confirm that the details of Cleveland's first and second Sweetest Day promotions were arranged and planned by a committee of 12 candymakers chaired by C. C. Hartsell . The primary source information from The Cleveland Plain Dealer clearly contradicts the claims made on the websites of American Greetings, Hallmark, Retail Confectioners International, and other internet websites which promote Sweetest Day using the story of Herbert Birch Kingston. Further, the Cuyahoga Census from 1920 shows that a mortgage was in place on Mr. Kingston's home, and there is zero evidence that Mr. Kingston provided the 19,500 boxes of candy which were distributed on Cleveland's first Sweetest Day . Although the statement may be true that the origins of Sweetest Day are frequently attributed to Mr. Kingston, it by no means warrants being the lead sentence in the section entitled The Origins of Sweetest Day.

• This tradition now largely involves giving small presents such as greeting cards, candy, and flowers to loved ones. While it is not as large or widely observed as Valentine's Day, it is still celebrated in parts of the United States, despite persistent allegations of being a Hallmark holiday.

It has not been established that Sweetest Day is a tradition anywhere. The only tradtion which seems apparent about Sweetest Day is that it is an annual and somewhat deceptive promotional event sponsored by various related industries (greeting card, candy, flower, etc.) and media. This would mean that the tradition largely involves promotion of disinformation and deception of consumers into buying gift-related products. In 1937, The New York Times clearly indicated that the purpose of Sweetest Day was to exploit gift-giving by related industries .

To be continued. In the mean time, it is obvious that this article remains disputed and should remain tagged as such until some concensus can be reached, if ever. Miracleimpulse 08:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I feel there is a consensus on the current version of the article. Consensus does not mean unanimous, it means "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community". I would also like to remind you NPOV cuts both ways. The article should not be overly sympathetic to candy/greeting card industry, but neither should it be an attack piece on those companies. If you want to "expose the real truth" about Sweetest Day, that is fine, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to do so. Write a letter to your local newspaper, or start a website. --Transfinite 18:07, 12 October 2006

• Comment and I agree with Transfinite. As the admin who originally removed the tag stated, one editor does not constitute a dispute, particularly when said editor is trying to advance a point of view agenda and is dead set on their own version of the article that is full of POV and original research. I suspect that Mediation will be the only way to ever solve this.--Isotope23 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

I believe the article as-is does not need the {{disputed}} tag, since only one editor (Miracleimpulse) is disputing it, and most of the facts are either sourced or simply semantics (such as calling Sweetest Day a holiday). However, I'll post it here before I do any more reverts, so I do not run afoul of WP:3RR. --Transfinite 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've asked the mediation cabal to weigh in on this if they will. I hate taking something so trivial there, but an edit war isn't going to solve anything and this is simply a case of 1 editor essentially denying the consensus version of this article. Hopefully mediation can bring a fresh perspective into this.--Isotope23 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It seems Miracleimpulse has added a {{hoax}} tag and a {{NPOV}} tag to the article, both of which has since been removed. The hoax tag is mostly for hoaxes that start on Misplaced Pages. Since this is a verfiable holiday/event/whatever, the hoax tag is inappropriate. If I were to, for example, start an article stating the second Thursday in August was Upside-Down Day that would be a hoax, should be tagged as such, and listed in AfD. Secondly, concerning the NPOV tag, I believe there is a consensus that the article is NPOV, so that tag can go as well. However, I would still welcome an outside opinion from the Mediation Cabal on if this article is really NPOV. --Transfinite 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination

Wow this article got fantastic overnight. How about a Featured Article Nomination for next Saturday? Miracleimpulse 11:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment stop making disruptive edits Miracleimpulse. Tacking your POV version on the end isn't a viable solution.--Isotope23 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment on this whole issue...

You know, even if the whole thing started as an industry-generated holiday, that doesn't preclude its existance as a valid minor modern holiday. All holidays must start somewhere, whether that's a government declaration, religious mandate, or candy industry promotion. The bottom line for its status as a holiday should be whether or not it's verifiably observed. --tjstrf 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Advertising References

I still have a problem with references #1,2,3 and 4. These websites are promotional in nature; they sell merchandise for Sweetest Day and do not reference their statements in any way. All statements referenced to these sources should be re-referenced or removed from the article. Miracleimpulse 11:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment you have a problem with them but nobody else does. They source the statments they reference. There is no reason to remove the sources or statements, or have a tag on the article.--Isotope23 12:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Candy Companies That Helped Start Sweetest Day

Isotope I notice that you edited out the names of the Sweetest Day Founders (except for Mr. Kimberly) and the names of the Candy Companies which participated in the origins of Sweetest Day. You have also edited out this information in the past. The companies involved in the creation of Sweetest Day are significant facts in the article, as many of these companies still exist today, although it seems like none of them even mention Sweetest Day on their websites. Here is the list of companies which participated in the creation of Sweetest Day:

Companies and organizations advertised in The Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Cleveland Press which participated in the first two Sweetest Days included:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper, The Cleveland Business Exchange, The Cleveland Advertising Club, Hotel Statler, Whitman's Candies, Loew's Park Theater, Loew's State Theater, The Ohio Theater, Apollo Chocolates, F.H. Roberts Company, Crane's Party Box, Ohio Confection Company, Euclid's Chocolates, Nimburger Hahn (Louis Hahn?) Candies, Shoot's Chocolates, Thurston's Magic Box Candies, Johnston's Candies, Hoffman's Candy And Ice Cream Companies, H.M.D Candies, Midland Candy Boxes, Standard Drug Stores (16 locations), Troughton's Sugar Jar Candies, Weideman's Candies, Addison Pharmacy, Alpha Pharmacy, The Bank Lunch, Benfield And Benfield (Benfield Drug Company), Bruggator And Ripley, H.D. Butler, W.W. Brown Company, Buckstein Drug Company, Cleveland Pharmacy, Deklyn's Candies, Deutch And Rosengarten, Fischer Rohr Company, Cedar Drug Company, Geiger Moss Drug Company, Geraldine Ferrar Company, Gerson Drug Company, Glick's Candies, Gordon Square Pharmacy, Hough Avenue Drug Company, The J.M. Gasser Company, Kappus Drug Store, Lakewood Pharmacy, Lake Shore Pharmacy, Liggett's Pharmacy, Marshall's Drug Stores (26 locations), Maxixe Cherries, Miller's Drug Stores, Parkgate Pharmacy, Price Drug Company, J.G. Reed And Company, M. Rinzler, Ritter's Candies, Seltzer Drug Company, G. Schneider-Richards Company, The Superior Peanut Company, H.M. Stage Company, Andrew E. Walleck Company, Weinberger-Euclid Drug Company, J.L. Westaway Company, Winton Hotel Drug Company, W.L.Wilson Company, Wyandotte Pharmacy, Wrigleys Gum, Reymer's Chocolates and BonBons, Edwards Candies, MacDiarmids Candies, Phelp's Candy, Mary Lincoln Candy Company, The Cross Candy Company, Forbes Chocolate Company, M. S. Stores, Romance Chocolates by The Wynne Wood, The Orient Company (baskets for candy), The Geo. H. Bowman Company, The May Company, Bailey's Department Store, Benedict's (dancing), Huyler's Candies, Martha Washington Candies, Bordens Chocolates, Schrafft's Chocolates, Playhouse Chocolates, Stranahan Brothers Company, Jackson-Trace Company, Beeman's Pepsin Gum, The Handy Service Store, and Ex-Lax (The Sweet Chocolate Laxative), Fanny Farmer Candies, The Loft, Inc.

Again, Isotope, it appears that you are spinning this article in favor of Industry. Please reinsert the facts. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 15:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Despite your assertion that this is somehow significant, this is an unnecessary level of detail. I edited out those names because they are not notable individuals. Mr. Kimberly is mentioned becuase there is a direct quote attributed to him. The fact that the rest of the commitee was made up of candy company employees/owners is succintly summarized by the statement: "Candy Men Set Oct 21 for Event to Be Called 'Sweetest Day'". The same is true for the list of sponsor companies you've listed above. Again, the article states "Dozens of Cleveland's top candy makers concocted the promotion 84 years ago..." The specific companies who underwrote the celebration are not terribly important; it doesn't add anything of value to the article to list every single sponsor here. This is an encyclopedia article Robb, not an expose. I think it is sufficiently stated and sourced in the article that both the Cleveland and NYC Sweetest Day committees were chaired by candy company personnel and that the advertisers for the Cleveland Sweetest Day were candy makers as well.

As for the header you keep adding in, I think it is unecessary and interrupts the flow of the article. All that information pertains to the origin of Sweetest Day and should be listed under the origin section.--Isotope23 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Today is Sweetest Day

...in Cleveland, and there is no mention of Sweetest Day on The Cleveland Plain Dealer's website. Not even one story about Sweetest Day in the Cleveland news this year? Maybe Cleveland isn't such a big Sweetest Day City after all... Miracleimpulse 14:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's not a particularly big or important holiday, and perhaps it's on the downswing in degree of observance rather than a growing trend. That doesn't make it a "hoax". Anyway, there have been many past articles in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, as you yourself have pointed out. *Dan T.* 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes *Dan T.* ...loads of articles, editorials, advertisements...but in 2006 nothing. Maybe the intro to this article needs to be rewritten? Miracleimpulse 15:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the intro needs to be altered. It is a minor holiday. — Reinyday, 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sonria 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It was all over the damned place, here in Cincinnati. See for an example.Cgirten 07:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The greeting card industry's methods of promoting Sweetest Day

Request for comment

Template:ActiveDiscuss

• This section details some of the methods used by the Greeting Card Industry to take the Sweetest Day promotion national. Other Misplaced Pages editors are invited to expand this section of the article (in an NPOV manner of course) and post it into the current Sweetest Day page.

Over the past several weeks these methods have been used by Industry in the marketing of Sweetest Day in order to sell tens of millions of products to Americans. The actions of Industry are documented and verified by tens of millions of copyrighted statements (greeting cards which contain the verisimilitudes). This is in no way a new synthesis of Sweetest Day being a Hallmark Holiday. Please make your comments at the bottom of this section. No personal attacks! 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Verisimilitude

The following two verisimilitudes are from the back of millions of Hallmark Sweetest Day Cards marketed in 2006:

• Ever wonder how Sweetest Day got it's start? It began in Cleveland during the Great Depression when a kindhearted candy worker decided to do something nice to make the tough times a little easier. He got some of his pals together and delivered little gifts and treats to people in need. Over time, Sweetest Day became more about connecting with friends and sweethearts. We now celebrate this special day on the third Saturday in October. --Hallmark Cards 2006

• Sweetest Day was established in the 1920s by a Cleveland candy company employee who wanted to bring happiness to shut-ins, orphans, and other individuals who were often forgotten. Sweetest Day is celebrated on the third Saturday in October and has become a day for remembering loved ones and friends who enrich our lives with their thoughtfulness. --Hallmark Cards 2006

The verisimilitude printed on the back of millions of greeting cards published in 2006 by American Greetings reads as follows:

• Celebrated on the third Saturday in October, Sweetest Day started in 1922, when a candy company employee organized a group to help deliver candy and small gifts to orphans and others whose lives needed brightening. Today, lovers and romantics embrace the day as well, but it is still a time to remember those who bring happiness to our lives." -- American Greetings 2006

The following is from Hallmark's website:

• BACKGROUND & HISTORY

Sweetest Day was established around 1922 by a Cleveland, Ohio, candy company employee. Seeking to bring happiness to the lives of those who often were forgotten, Herbert Birch Kingston and a handful of others who supported his efforts distributed candy and small gifts to orphans, shut-ins and others to show them that someone cared.

Even celebrities got involved. In the early 1930s, movie star presented 2,200 Cleveland newspaper boys with boxes of candy to express gratitude for their service to the public. Another movie star, Theda Bara, gave candy to those who came to watch her films at a local theater and then distributed 10,000 additional boxes of candy to patients in Cleveland hospitals.

In time, the Sweetest Day idea of spreading cheer to the underprivileged was broadened to include everyone from family members to sweethearts, and co-workers to acquaintances.

Hallmark first made Sweetest Day cards in the mid-1960s.

--Hallmark Cards website 2006

Dissimulation

Sock Puppetry

American Greetings sock puppetry of Hallmark's website 2006.

More sock puppetry from American Greetings' website.

Even more...

Let's talk about it. Miracleimpulse 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't understand what you're saying. Could you please explain what you mean? While I'm here, I have a few comments for you. To link to a Misplaced Pages article, you can type ] instead of . Second, section headings in articles have the first word capitalized and subsequent words in lower case (unless they are proper nouns), so a section heading would read "Candy companies create Sweetest Day" instead of "Candy Companies Create Sweetest Day". However, a section heading such a "Origin" is a clearer way of indicating to the reader that you will be discussing the origin of the holiday. Third, it is very obvious that you are unhappy about the existence of Sweetest Day, which is fine. However, your edits to make the article have a negative view of the holiday are going to be reverted as having a point of view (POV) because Misplaced Pages articles try to have a more inclusive approach to subjects, and there is obviously conflicting information about this subject. Lastly, I thought the inclusion of census records was a great touch! — Reinyday, 02:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the editing tips Reinyday! It's very simple. The Herbert Birch Kingston story of the origins of origins of Sweetest Day is a verisimilitude which replaces the truth through dissimulation. Sock puppet companies then repeat the distortion endlessly and there you have it: a legend which never occurred. Some would like this to be perceived as a popular mythology, but it is not. It is industry-generated, highly deceptive and used to sell products. Do not think of it as a little white lie. American Greetings and Hallmark just issued tens of millions of Sweetest Day products with this distortion printed right on the back of every card. Now do you see where I am coming from? Every day will be equally sweet when this type of market and consumer manipulation comes to an end. Miracleimpulse 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment got evidence from a reliable source? If so, then please link it here and we have something to discuss; otherwise this is more theorizing and conjecture and there really is no point in having a discussion. Like it or not, this version of events has been widely reported, enough that regardless of whatever the truth may be, the HBK story is still the most widely reported origin. If you have solid evidence that a particular company started the HBK story, I'd love to see it; otherwise this whole discussion is a waste of time.--Isotope23 13:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of companies have promoted "histories" that are at least partly bogus, and actually, Misplaced Pages is pretty good at cutting through them and giving the real facts when they can be verified. Look at the articles on Monopoly (game) (it wasn't invented by Charles Darrow), McDonald's (it wasn't started by Ray Kroc), and Skippy peanut butter (they'd rather you didn't know about the decades-long battle over how they allegedly ripped off a cartoonist who created a character named Skippy in order to get the trademark on the name). Similarly, the article on Sweetest Day gives some skeptical scrutiny to its origin story rather than merely parroting the corporate propaganda. On the other hand, we're not a scandal sheet or a political rant site either; it's not proper to have our articles be dominated by long rants about how evil the corporations are. I think we've got decent balance in these articles, giving both the corporations' side and that of the critics, with well-referenced facts. *Dan T.* 13:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Isotope and Dan: Dan says, "Lots of companies have promoted "histories" that are at least partly bogus," and this is exactly why the statements and references attributed to Hallmark, American Greetings, and Retail Confectioners International should immediately be removed from this Sweetest Day article. Dan goes on to say, "I think we've got decent balance in these articles, giving both the corporations' side and that of the critics, with well-referenced facts." How can Dan maintain that both of these statements are true in the same paragraph? Actually, neither the critics nor the corporations' side is well-referenced at all. This is why we need to post just the facts, and not from company or trade organization websites.

Isotope says, "got evidence from a reliable source? If you have solid evidence that a particular company started the HBK story, I'd love to see it; otherwise this whole discussion is a waste of time." The HBK story is not primarily sourced in any way anywhere. And you are correct: it is a waste of time to talk about it. Just remove the HBK statement and reference from the article until it is reliably sourced. Miracleimpulse 14:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, it doesn't need to be primarily sourced and if you'd take the time to read the policies and guidelines for sourcing you would see that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. The statements in the article are adequately sourced and state exactly what is verifiable based on the sources. Just because you dislike the sources being used is no reason to remove the text that has consensus agreement.--Isotope23 17:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted your changes Miracleimpulse. Don't use the article as a sandbox for your changes. Adding empty sections is not the correct way to edit an article.. The section you added about New York has already been merged into "Origins" by multiple editors and there is no consensus to break it out. The HBK section is original research, is editorial/expose in nature, and doesn't add anything of value to the article. This is exactly the sort of editing behavior that has led to your previous blocks. I'm asking you nicely to please stop being disruptive here.--Isotope23 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hi, I'm Addhoc from the mediation-cabal. Could we start by discussing whether the following paragraph is covered by WP:NOR...

"Countless internet websites including those of American Greetings, Hallmark and Retail Confectioners International attribute the origins of Sweetest Day to candy store employee and philanthropist Herbert Birch Kingston. A Google search for Herbert Birch Kingston returns over 100,000 results. A Google image search, however, returns zero results. Cuyahoga County, Ohio census results from the year prior to the first Sweetest Day show Herbert Birch Kingston's occupation as advertiser. The census also shows that Mr. Kingston owned his home, but that a mortgage was in place on the property. To date, no primary source of information links Mr. Kingston to the origins of Sweetest Day in any way."

Addhoc 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• That is as good a place to start as any. In my opinion, it is covered by WP:NOR insomuch that the purpose of it is to suggest that Herbert Birch Kingston did not have any part in the inception of Sweetest Day (and if that is not the case then it is simply a series of factoids better collected at an article about Herbert Birch Kingston as it would be off-topic to Sweetest Day). While this may be true, it is not verifiable from the circumstantial evidence presented in this paragraph and to me it runs afoul of WP:NOR:

1. It introduces original ideas;
2. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;

I don't see any reliable source at this time specifically stating that Herbert Birch Kingston didn't have a hand in the creation of Sweetest Day. Lubinger, Schmidt, et al don't say anything about Kingston. The statements in the above paragraph are circumstantial evidence. No Google image of HBK doesn't in any way "prove" he had no part in the inception of Sweetest Day. In fact the members of the 1921 Sweetest Day of the Year Committee in Cleveland also get no Google image hits. The census and mortgage information is proof that Mr. Kingston existed, worked as an advertiser, owned a confectinary, and owned a home (with a mortgage on it) but in no way is precludes his involvement in the inception of Sweetest Day. Indeed, for all anyone knows, Kingston was an advertiser tasked with coming up with a promotion to sell more candy and he accomplished this with a promotion tied to a giveaway of candy to the less fortunate. I'm of course not suggesting that be added to the article because it is pure speculation, but so is the speculation that the Herbert Birch Kingston story is a complete fabrication. Neither would constitute verifiable, reliably sourced information. The comment about primary sources is irrelevant as per WP:RS "In general, Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." The only part that isn't OR is the first sentence and that is somewhat redundant with the first sentence of the Origins section: "The origin of Sweetest Day is frequently attributed to candy company employee Herbert Birch Kingston as an act of philanthropy."--Isotope23 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take this paragraph a sentence or two at a time:
  • "Countless internet websites including those of American Greetings, Hallmark and Retail Confectioners International attribute the origins of Sweetest Day to candy store employee and philanthropist Herbert Birch Kingston." - This is verifiable.
  • "A Google search for Herbert Birch Kingston returns over 100,000 results. A Google image search, however, returns zero results." This is original research. Easy to do research, but original none the less. This info is not very relevant either.
  • "Cuyahoga County, Ohio census results from the year prior to the first Sweetest Day show Herbert Birch Kingston's occupation as advertiser. The census also shows that Mr. Kingston owned his home, but that a mortgage was in place on the property." - Borderline original research. These are primary sources, which should be used carefully. However, this passage implies that Sweetest Day is primarily advertising, which is original research.
  • "To date, no primary source of information links Mr. Kingston to the origins of Sweetest Day in any way." This is definitely Original research. Besides, what is wrong with secondary sources?
  • Two things bug me about this passage. One, the heading over it is "The Mischaracterization of Herbert Birch Kingston", which is a new synthethis of existing sources. The other is I don't see the point of all this, if not for original research conclusion that Sweetest Day is simply advertising. So there aren't any images on Google Image Search. So what? There is one picture for Harry F. Klemfuss (the creator of Secretary's Day), which is just generic clipart. Two hits for Patricia Bays Haroski (creator of Boss's Day), one of which looks like stock photography. 26 for Sonora Smart Dodd , founder of Father's Day. Anna Jarvis , who had a large part in founding Mother's Day, has 441 images. Peter J. McGuire, who "is credited with first proposing the idea of Labor Day as a national holiday", gets 71 hits. For comparision, a Google image search for Britney Spears gets you 127,000 images. All the census records show is that HBK existed, and had a mortgage on his house. Whoop-de-doo. --Transfinite 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(apologies to Addhoc I wasn't finished)

• Who knew that editing a simple article like Sweetest Day on Misplaced Pages would turn into such a controversy! It has been a remarkable if not completely pleasant experience. I first decided to investigate the origins of Sweetest Day as a result of this message thread on the Yahoo American Greetings Message Board. The message exchange began in September 2005, and it was soon obvious that something was screwy about Sweetest Day. To date, although the message thread contains 263 messages, no-one has posted any factual information confirming Mr. Kingston's involvement in the origins of Sweetest Day. When the Bill Lubinger article was posted to the thread, it made me want to investigate further. I requested microfilm of the October 8, 1921 issue of The Cleveland Plain Dealer referenced in the Lubinger article so I could see for myself. Surprisingly, almost none of the information in Mr. Lubinger's article was mentioned in the October 8, 1921 issue of The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Mr. Lubinger's article seemed like more disinformation about Sweetest Day than fact. This made me even more curious about what really happened. I returned to The Center for Research Libraries several more times to read subsequent editions of The Cleveland Plain Dealer published in October of 1922, 23, 24, 25, etc. The results of my investigation were astounding. Not only was there absolutely no mention of Herbert Birch Kingston in the newspapers, the exact origins were extremely well-covered by The Cleveland Plain Dealer. In fact it became apparent that The Cleveland Plain Dealer was a very active participant in the promotion of the first Sweetest Days in Cleveland. The 12 Founders of Sweetest Day used The Cleveland Plain Dealer to deliver their Sweetest Day promotional articles, editorials and advertisements to hundreds of thousands of Clevelanders each and every year of the first Sweetest Day Promotions. Anyone can go to the library and see this documentation of the origins of Sweetest Day.

Then one day I became aware of Misplaced Pages and decided to see what the controversial online encyclopedia had to say about Sweetest Day. The Sweetest Day article read like a blurb on the back of a Hallmark Sweetest Day card. The article was completely unsourced and read exactly like every other verisimilitude being used to promote Sweetest Day on the internet. It became clear to me that Misplaced Pages was being used for advertising purposes on the topic of Sweetest Day. And so I decided to edit the Misplaced Pages article and add the facts uncovered on my investigation. On 25 May 2006 I made my first attempt at contributing to the Sweetest Day article: a link to a fun slideshow I had made about Sweetest Day from photocopies of The Cleveland Plain Dealer made on my various trips to the Center for Research Libraries. As I had no idea whatsoever what I was doing, the link didn't work. On 9 June 2006 I added a more bold edit, this time trying to explain what I had discovered in my investigation of Sweetest Day thus far. My edit was reversed within 2 minutes by HappyCamper as "confusing." No attempt was made by HappyCamper to improve my edit. He simply added a disputed tag and removed my edit completely. This struck me as very odd, even though I was totally new at editing Misplaced Pages.

To make a long story shorter, I continued adding my edits to the page, and at first they seemed well-received and several editors made improvements to the article. Then as Sweetest Day 2006 approached, things got more intense. All of my edits were removed regularly by Transfinite and Isotope23, who continually reverted to the original industry spin of the origins of Sweetest Day. It soon became apparent that Transfinite, Isotope23 and others did not want the true story of Sweetest Day, based on historical news articles, to be posted on Misplaced Pages! As Sweetest Day 2006 approached, the editing on the Sweetest Day page got frenzied and rather ugly. I was blocked twice from editing due to "disruption." It certainly seemed as though a cabal of industry spindoctors, including admins, was attempting to control the information being posted on Misplaced Pages about Sweetest Day prior to Sweetest Day 2006. And still the information is being controlled. Advertisers and promoters of Sweetest Day are being used as sources for the article. Images, editorials and news articles are being blocked in an obvious attempt to keep the true story of how Sweetest Day originated at a bare minimum or as close to the industry spin as possible. My doubts about Misplaced Pages remain.

I suppose time will add clarity and context to what has happened here on the Sweetest Day page at Misplaced Pages. A really excellent and comprehensive article about Sweetest Day could be constructed here on Misplaced Pages, but not while information is being managed and suppressed by anonymous heros. RT Miracleimpulse 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Miracleimpulse, in the current version of the article there is already some discussion of the involvement of "'The Cleveland Plain Dealer". Reviewing the disputed sentences individually:

• "Countless internet websites including those of American Greetings, Hallmark and Retail Confectioners International attribute the origins of Sweetest Day to "candy store employee and philanthropist Herbert Birch Kingston" - agree with Transfinite this is verifiable information.
• "A Google search for Herbert Birch Kingston returns over 100,000 results. A Google image search, however, returns zero results." - agree this is original research.
• "Cuyahoga County, Ohio census results from the year prior to the first Sweetest Day show Herbert Birch Kingston's occupation as advertiser. The census also shows that Mr. Kingston owned his home, but that a mortgage was in place on the property." - agree this is borderline original research using primary sources.
• "To date, no primary source of information links Mr. Kingston to the origins of Sweetest Day in any way." - agree this is original research.

Addhoc 11:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• We certainly could discuss merging the current "The origin of Sweetest Day is frequently attributed to candy company employee Herbert Birch Kingston as an act of philanthropy." statement with "Countless internet websites including those of American Greetings, Hallmark and Retail Confectioners International attribute the origins of Sweetest Day to "candy store employee and philanthropist Herbert Birch Kingston" as both are WP:V statments.--Isotope23 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The only other thing I wanted to say is that the preceeding text by Miracleimpulse and the lack of assumption of good faith towards everyone else who has edited here, and myself and Transfinite in particular (especially in light of the fact that I've personally added several sections and sources that are critical of the popular mythology of Sweetest Day), just illustrates the level of frustration that led me to request mediation here. I'm striving to create an article that meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and states exactly what can be verifiably stated based on the sources being provided. I think the article we have right now is leaps and bounds better than the article that existed at this namespace 6 months ago (and it is interesting to note that at least 2 of the sources in the article now were created after the Lubinger sources were added to this article; both reference Lubinger & the Cleveland Plains Dealer... the first time I've seen any online sources mention him since I started editing this article, which I only became aware of when it went on AfD) . The thing to remember though is that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative and consensus effort and consensus is the law of the land unless it violates policy.--Isotope23 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Let's compare the popular mythologies of Christmas and Sweetest Day. Oh, we can't because there is no popular mythology of Sweetest Day. Only an industry-generated verisimilitude to act as a surrogate. Herbert Birch Kingston and his role in the origins of Sweetest Day is not documented in any encyclopedia to my knowledge, nor is Sweetest Day. That is because Sweetest Day has never been recognized as a holiday anywhere (not even in the City of Cleveland). Sweetest Day is an annual industry-generated promotional event. This article should be removed from the holiday category altogether and added to the hoax category. Sweetest Day is definitely a notable 85-year-old hoax. Miracleimpulse 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm not sure that is the example you want to be using Robb. Perhaps you should look more closely at Christmas, much of the popular mythology of that day was created by commercial interests...--Isotope23 20:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rudolph and Santa are obviously fictional characters. Herbert Birch Kingston was not. One is mythology; the other is fraud. Miracleimpulse 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, calling Santa Claus fictional is not entirely true.--Isotope23 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case, we are providing a public service in explaining this. Addhoc 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely Addhoc. I have seen the Misplaced Pages article referenced on at least 5 various websites this year. And it was totally spun by industry prior to Sweetest Day 2006. Just review the former edits and see what was removed. Or better yet, resurrect my user page which was deleted by the industry cabal! Miracleimpulse 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The four verisimilitudes still contained in the current article are:

Sweetest Day is a holiday celebrated primarily in the Great Lakes region and parts of the Northeast United States (with Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, New York being the biggest Sweetest Day cities) on the third Saturday in October. It is described by Retail Confectioners International, a confection trade organization, 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."

The origin of Sweetest Day is frequently attributed to candy company employee Herbert Birch Kingston as an act of philanthropy.

-and-

Sweetest Day now largely involves giving small presents such as greeting cards, candy, and flowers to loved ones. While it is not as large or widely observed as Valentine's Day, it is still celebrated in parts of the United States, despite persistent allegations of being a "Hallmark holiday."

--as well as the holiday infobox------------->

If you think this Misplaced Pages article isn't being used by industry to sell products, think again. These unverified statements are all sourced to promotional websites. Miracleimpulse 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The whole first paragraph Miracleimpulse objects to is adequately sourced. The first sentence is exactly what is said on countless websites about the region where Sweetest Day is observed. The second part I presume he objects to because of the RCI sourcing because again, this is text that is stated on many websites. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence and in this case the claim that this is a regional event most predominent in 3 mid-sized cities is a rather ordinary claim. Additionally, the sourcing is actually mentioned in the article as well as the fact that it is a trade organization. That is a great amount of transparency and allows any reader to judge them merits of the source as they see fit.

The second passage mentioned (pertaining to HBK) is absolutely verifiable information. We could swap out the source itself with numerous other sources and it would still be a verifiable statement. If it is the source Miracleimpulse objects to, we can discuss that, but the statement itself meets WP:V requirements and should stay.

The final section was previously unsourced, but Addhoc was nice enough to go out and find a source for it, so this now meets WP:V as well.

Per the Holiday infobox, we could start a discussion on that. I think this is largely a schism between the dictionary definition of a holiday and the more informal useage of the term.--Isotope23 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The four verisimilitudes contained in the current article are false reconstructions of the truth, very well-worded and highly deceptive in nature. They are intended to sell product for Sweetest Day. These "contrived facts" are being sockpuppeted all over the internet in order to give them the appearance of verifiability. Their inclusion in the current Sweetest Day article where they are masquerading as facts is the equivalent of WikiSpam. With regard to the first paragraph, industry is telling America (without any verification whatsoever) that Sweetest Day is celebrated in certain areas of the United States, and so others should think about celebrating it too. Industry used an opposite tactic on October 11, 1924, when they told Clevelanders in an editorial published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer that Sweetest Day had become a National Institution. Do not underestimate the level of deception intended by the inclusion of these verisimilitudes in the current Misplaced Pages Sweetest Day article. The reference added by Addhoc is also a Sweetest Day promotional site and should not be cited as a source for any article on Misplaced Pages. Inclusion of these four verisimilitudes in the current Misplaced Pages Sweetest Day article is an attempt at mass deception and reduces the article to a rendering of a promotional device. Miracleimpulse 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please read WP:V Miracleimpulse. These statements are all verifiably sourced. The fact that you dislike or disprove of the sources is not relevant here due to the consensus pertaining to this text and the sourcing used. Unless there is a reliable source produced that directly and explicitly refutes these statements, I'm not sure further debate on this is warrented, though I would appreciate some additional comments and views from the mediator or other editors.--Isotope23 15:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've switched the source for the "Hallmark holiday" section. Regarding the origins and facts about sweetest day, I agree that perhaps we shouldn't use it uncritically. Personally, I think the retail confectioners web site is used responsibly apart from possibly the first sentence. Would Miracleimpulse consider suggesting a rephrased version of this sentence... Addhoc 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We could always swap out the netglimpse source and use a different source. There are numerous other sources that cover where this is observed.--Isotope23 16:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the sources, however so far I haven't been able to find a reference for Buffalo, New York... Addhoc 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a rephrased "(with Detroit and Cleveland being the biggest Sweetest Day cities)" until sourcing to support the Buffalo statement is produced.--Isotope23 17:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Addhoc 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question: What is the best way to promote Sweetest Day using this Misplaced Pages article?
• Answer: Let's block as much factual information as possible and post the verisimilitudes used by industry to promote the holiday, because Misplaced Pages is all about verifiability, not truth!

Agreed. Miracleimpulse 10:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day facts

These Sweetest Day facts should be incorporated into the article:

1. The Chairman of the first Sweetest Day in the Year Committee was C. C. Hartsell.

2. The other Founders who comprised the first Sweetest Day in the Year Committee 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, L. Narwood and L. E. Gruber.

3. On the first Sweetest Day, the largest candy advertisement in The Cleveland Plain Dealer was for Whitman's Candies.

4. One week before the second Sweetest Day, in a 4-page Sweetest Day Section, a full page editorial telling Clevelanders why they should celebrate Sweetest Day was published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

5. Also published in the 4-page Sweetest Day Section on 10/8/1922 an article written by the Commissioner of Health from New York City (Royal S. Copeland) was published telling Clevelanders to "Eat Candy as Part of Meal and Be Happy."

6. One week before the second Sweetest Day, actor Jimmy Hussey promised candy for all Cleveland.

7. One week before the second Sweetest Day, a coupon was published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer to be used for giving candy to poor people.

8. The names of all candy companies which participated in the promotion of the first two Sweetest Days should be added to the article. .

9. The 4-page Sweetest Day Section published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer on October 8, 1922 reached over 220,000 Clevelanders.

10. Herbert Birch Kingston's 1920 Cuyahoga County, Ohio census form should be added to the article, showing that as of 1920, Herbert Birch Kingston was an advertiser.

Please incorporate these facts (and photos or links to photos) into the Sweetest Day article. Thank you! Lots more to come! Miracleimpulse 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We've already gone over this and several editors agreed this information was unnecessary but if you want to revisit it...

1. 1-2, For starters, none of these people are overly significant individuals. How does naming the committee members and chairman any better (and calling them "founders" is your terminology Miracleimpulse, the articles refers to them as "Sweetest Day comittee members")? Listing their names (and adding a large image gallery as you've done it the past) adds nothing of value to this article, particularly since anyone can click on the image on the right and see all of their names.--Isotope23 15:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 3-5,#7,#9 Again... this is indescrimate information that adds nothing of value. This isn't an article about the Cleveland Plains Dealer.

1. 6... a minor actor appears in a advertisement for Sweetest Day. Again, this is indescrimate information.

1. 8 Sorry Miracle, but this is an unnecessary level of detail and goes against indescrimate information. Listing every corporate sponsor does not add anything to an encyclopedic article.

1. 10 We've already covered this earlier in this mediation. This is original research if you are tying to use this to someone "prove" HBK had no involvment in Sweetest Day (and it in no way verifies that. Otherwise it is indescrimate information that has no bearing on this article and would only be appropriate in a biographical article about Kingston.

It should also be mentioned that you are the only editor here who seems to feel this article, in it's current form promotes Sweetest Day. Numerous other editors have deemed this a balanced WP:NPOV article. All of the additions you want to make are the minutae of sourced statements already in the first paragraph of the origins section, along with sources so anyone who wants to do further research can do so. Please remember this is an encyclopedia with encyclopedia articles not an place to publish a detailed expose.--Isotope23 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• You better hurry on over to Answers.com Isotope. Oops, you can't edit that one, can you? Dang! Miracleimpulse 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Miracleimpulse please click on the links in the mediation templates above and read the Misplaced Pages policies. Your continued unwillingness to be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith don't help this discussion in any way. On another note, what is printed at Answers.com or any other Misplaced Pages mirror is of no concern to me. They reprint the versions they see fit, as is their right to do. Besides if you look at the edit history here that version is one that I primarily contributed to so your comments are completely off mark.--Isotope23 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• I am quite aware that you added those names to the edit Isotope. Right after you deleted the photos. That's what makes it so funny. Don't forget to laugh it makes things easier. You might as well get over trying to manage and suppress this information about Sweetest Day. By Sweetest Day 2007, it's gonna be everywhere. It already is. It is all 100% public domain. Miracleimpulse 17:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it at least possible to get better scans of those newspaper stories than those photos of the papers lying at an angle? (However, it's possible that they're not fully public domain; anything dated 1923 or later that has been registered and renewed is still under copyright.) *Dan T.* 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Image instructions were already removed by another editor... it is unecessary to have instructions in the images on how to enlarge. Beyond that, trying to go around consensus to remove those images from the article by linking them to image text is the wrong way to do this Miracleimpulse. You should create an image gallery in Wikicommons and add a wikicommons link to the article. That is the correct way to link to extraneous images.--Isotope23 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now all we need to do is get rid of the highly deceptive verisimilitudes which are still contained in this article, and we will be on our way to something which resembles an encyclopedic article and not a promotional piece. Misplaced Pages is not advertising. Remove the verisimilitudes please. Miracleimpulse 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look at all like an advertisement to me; it does mention the "promotional" story, but mentions that it's a promotional story and that it's criticized; and it has copious footnotes. Not very ad-like to me. *Dan T.* 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The first two sentences in the introduction of the article are straight off of Retail Confectioners International's promotional website about Sweetest Day. The holiday infobox says buy cards and candy. In the Sweetest Day Today section, the article says giving small presents such as greeting cards, candy and flowers to loved ones. I'll bet you can't see that 100 US Service Personel were blown away in Iraq during the month of October this year while back at home Hallmark, American Greetings and Retail Confectioners International faked America out with Sweetest Day verisimilitudes to sell products, either. Remove the verisimilitudes and stop using this Misplaced Pages article as a promotional device! Miracleimpulse 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of American service personnel killed in Iraq is relevant to this... why? *Dan T.* 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• The issue goes to credibility and integrity. Industry (especially American Greetings and Hallmark in this case) suffers a huge disconnect when it comes to responsibility for their actions. Promoting fake holidays like Sweetest Day on false pretenses lowers the credibility and integrity of everything else these companies do. It lowers the integrity and credibility of American Sentiment overall, making it easier for the world to hate America. How many little treats and boxes of candy were given by Industry to American Service Personel to commemorate Sweetest Day 2006? Zero. Why should Misplaced Pages give them free advertising? Miracleimpulse 02:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Once again you are trying to create a relationship between two things that are completely unrelated. You can't seriously be suggesting that a minor, regional, "holiday" that likely has never been heard of outside the States (as evidenced by the AfD initiated by someone, who was if I recall correctly a Brit, because they had never heard of "Sweetest Day") is somehow linked to the United States international image problem? Where is the data that supports this? Where is any respected academic suggesting that Hallmark, Anmerican Greetings, or any other commercial concern is responsible for the global image problem the U.S. has? If your primary concern is the causes of the current global dislike of the American there are numerous other articles on Misplaced Pages you should be focusing on: Preemptive war, George W. Bush, Iraq War... among others.--Isotope23 14:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Re:The infobox - I put in what I felt the two "Celebrations" were - the reason Hallmark, etc. etc. gives, and what people who are critical of the holiday say it is for (buying useless junk). --Transfinite 04:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Holidays to pick on...

OK... enough picking on Sweetest Day, which is over with for this year now anyway. Why don't you find something to attack about Halloween instead... I bet that holiday is responsible for vastly more sales for the candy industry than Sweetest Day. Sure, Halloween has actual non-marketing origins, but they're connected with pagan religions that almost nobody actually follows these days, and it has been mutated beyond recognition by modern Americans anyway. *Dan T.* 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Halloween is a cultural event widely recognized around the world whose origins predate Sweetest Day by over 10 centuries. The recognition of Sweetest Day, on the other hand never occurred anywhere in any society until it was conceived and promoted by industry. Sweetest Day is not a holiday: it is a widely advertised promotional event originated by industry and maintained through dubious, unethical and outright deceptive marketing techniques. If all promotion of this artificial industry-generated marketing event were to immediately cease, the phenomenon of Sweetest Day would soon disappear forever, and the US Greeting Card Industry might take one step forward in the direction of credibility. Miracleimpulse 14:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Halloween, as we celebrate it, is actually entirely manufactured in this society. Out society, much as many other holidays, has massively commercialised it. Is that good or bad? No idea, but that's how it is. Wow I'm off topic... I'll shut up now. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel bad... much of this talk page is completely off topic...--Isotope23 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Valentine's Day in October

Wow, this is the first I've heard of Sweetest Day being about candy. I guess I just assumed it was a Hallmark holiday constructed to get people to buy more Valentine's Day crap in October. While I suppose candy is often involved (chocolate covered strawberries seem to be common), there is far more emphasis on the term-of-endearment "sweet" than the sugar-based "sweet." Look around, and you'll see plenty of red and pink hearts, red and pink roses teddy bears dressed in such, and just about everything else one would associate with February 14th, only with "Sweetest" in place of "Valentine's." I never would have guessed this was a marketing ploy by some confectioners in the 1920s. If it weren't for this paragraph, I'd say this article was completely irrelevant to modern day. --75.117.254.90 15:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

General cleanup

I'm doing some general cleanup here to tighten up the article per the FA guidelines. My hope is to eventually get this into shape to be a FA or at least a GA considering the fact that several news stories were written around Sweetest Day and they appear to have used this article as a starting point.--Isotope23 18:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Considering that several news articles have referenced this article, perhaps you should stop editing out the facts:

Here is the complete New York Times article from October 8, 1922:

CANDY DAY TO SPREAD SWEETNESS SATURDAY

Stores Manufacturing on Premises Are to Give Souvenirs of product.

Candy day will be celebrated throughout the United States on Saturday next. The Confectioners' and Ice Cream Manufacturers' Protective Association announced yesterday that it has completed plans for popularizing the day in New York. There are about 1,800 candy stores in this city, and about 550 are members of the association and manufacture most of the candy they sell.

In every one of the members' stores special displays will be arranged, and each customer will receive souvenirs, E. A. G. Intemann Jr., President of the association said. Pa, Ma, and the kiddies will all be supplied with a piece of home-made candy, mostly in the form of peppermint sticks. There has been so much interest manifest among confectioners and such enthusiasm over candy day that the association has offered prizes for the best display of candy manufactured on the premises and for the most artistic piece of candy manufactured. Mr. Intemann said that the candy entered in the competition would, in his opinion, be masterpieces of the candymaking art.

"Let Candy Day be a time when everyone feels young again," he said. "Everybody likes candy, and we all want to make the day one of happiness for all; a day to bring back the memory of the time when a pilgrimage to the candy store for a stick of peppermint or a hunk of molasses taffy was an event to be looked forward to. I recall even now the childish pleasure I derived from a visit to the little store in our block and the pride with which I returned home attached to a stick of candy.

"I met a man the other day who said when he heard of Candy Day that it recalled just those things to his mind, and he started out to see whether he could still find the particular kind of candy that used to delight him. He did, and so it is not so very far-fetched to say that Candy Day will revive our youth.

"The association wants to see Candy Day firmly established, and the public can rest assured that, so far as this organization is concerned, the day will not be made an excuse for gouging. Prices will remain the same as on every other day. What we do want, however, is to see every man, woman and child enjoy candy on next Saturday."

Although Candy Day was instituted in 1915, the confectioners made no effort to celebrate it. This was because of the war, and later because of the sugar situation. Saturday, Mr. Intemann says, will be New York's first real Candy Day.

• Sweetest Day/Candy Day ads for October 14, 1922 have so far been located in the New York Times, The Buffalo Evening News, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Cleveland Press, and The Chicago Daily News.

Why not edit these facts into the article. Miracleimpulse 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the fact that several news articles have referred to this article is exactly why I started cleaning it up to meet a higher standard of writing per FA & GA. The source you've stated above is already mentioned in the article (and is something you removed eariler today in your reversion). Going into the level of detail of incorporating the minutae of this into the article is unecessary and takes this article further away from style guidelines (and relevance I might add as evidenced by the anon comment above). Mention of the fact that they apparently tried to institute it in 1915 could be mentioned , but really that is the only pertinent thingsI see from that article other than mentioning that it happened. On a completely unrelated note, I'm not so sure a cut and paste job of that article is allowable even on the Talk Page. Anyone know if NYT retains copyright on their earlier works or if they've released them into the public domain and simply charge to query the archive?--Isotope23 17:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Suppression and management of information

There is such an obvious effort to suppress and manage information about Sweetest Day on this page it is turning Misplaced Pages into a joke. Miracleimpulse 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AGF Miracleimpulse. The edits I and others have made to the article have been to cleanup the original research, POV, and indescriminate information that has been added to the article. You are the sole editor who disagrees with the consensus that has been established here time and time again. As for the photos, I've already stated numerous times that these should be in a Wikicommons Gallery with an link back to the article. I even saved one of them from deletion. How does that qualify as suppression?--Isotope23 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers Isotope. What a joke. While adding facts and information and photos to this page, my user page has been deleted and I have been blocked 3 times from editing. You have deleted most of the facts about the origins of Sweetest Day and sanitized the rest so that this article looks more like a promotional piece than an historical record. The Herbert Birch Kingston verisimilitude has been disproven about 12 different ways and yet it remains the lead sentence in the article. Advertising websites with no verification of "facts" are being used as references. Promotional statements from trade organizations are included in the article. What's happening on this page is making Misplaced Pages look like one big joke. Miracleimpulse 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you have a problem with me or my conduct here, please feel free to log an ARBCOM case against me. The article talk page is the wrong forum for this.--Isotope23 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image removal / vandalism

Despite your contention this is vandalism Miracleimpulse, this image is a large, grainy photo of a person with no strongly demonstrated sourced notability in regards to this topic. He was the chairman of the Sweetest Day Committee in Cleveland, 1921. This image adds nothing of real value to this article. At risk of this becoming a mantra I will say again: this belongs in a Wikicommons image gallery... not in the article. WP:AGF, but I find it interesting you are suddenly reinserting this image into the article now that it has been nominated for deletion as orphaned fair use. The other images removed by User:Tregoweth I don't have a big problem with. They are smaller and don't mess up the asthetic of the article. Having one or at most two images for historical context isn't a problem, but the two images I've left in the article at least have more relevance to the topic. Hartzell is just too insignificant to justify an image in the article.--Isotope23 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Of course your edits to this page are vandalism Isotope! You have added virtually nothing to the article: you only remove things. You edit out facts which are uncomplimentary to Industry like Sweetest Day headlines from The New York Times which read "To Exploit Gift-Giving." C. C. Hartzell is quite significant to the origins of Sweetest Day. He supervised the giveaway of 10,000 boxes of candy at Cleveland's orphanages and charitable institutions in order to create a newsworthy event which would gain the attention of Clevelanders and help induce them to observe Sweetest Day. C. C. Hartzell also crowned the first Queen of Sweetest Day, 82-year-old Vera Sissons. C. C Hartzell also chaired the committee of 12 candymakers who arranged the details of Cleveland's first Sweetest Day in the year, and this is the fact you keep editing out of the article, because it contradicts the industry spin that Herbert Birch Kingston is the founder of Sweetest Day. Why don't you post a photo of Herbert Birch Kingston in the article. Why don't you introduce one single sourced fact which credits Herbert Birch Kingston with the founding of Sweetest Day. There must be one somewhere. American Greetings was allegedly right there in Cleveland when the first Sweetest Days were promoted by industry in 1921 and 1922. Surely they took a snapshot of the industry icon who masterminded this multi-billion-dollar promotion. And if you believe the images related to Sweetest Day belong in a Wikicommons gallery, why haven't you created it. Miracleimpulse 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a sense of deja vu here... we've had this conversation before. That removal is called editing. I've edited out original research, POV pushing, and content that takes away from this being a WP:GOOD article, specifically trivial unnecessary details of the exact historical celebrations . I edited the New York Times section because it was overly bloated, focused on unimportant minutae, and overall detracted from the quality of the article. Contrary to your contention above

"C. C Hartzell also chaired the committee of 12 candymakers who arranged the details of Cleveland's first Sweetest Day in the year, and this is the fact you keep editing out of the article..."

the article clearly states, "the first Sweetest Day was planned by a committee of 12 confectioners chaired by candymaker C. C. Hartzell." Hartzell is clearly mentioned in the article in reference to his chairmanship of the Sweetest Day committee; but he simply is not significant enough for their to be a photo of him in the article (much less a grainy, poor quality one). The rest of your post has been extensively covered here already in the archives. The article never states HBK definitively created Sweetest Day... it states the creation is attributed to him and this is sourced. As for why I have not created a gallery, these are your images that you've uploaded Miracleimpulse. I have to say that my interest level in this topic is not so great that I want to spend my time setting up an image gallery. I'm simply advising you that if you are interested it retaining these photos you should set them up into an image gallery.--Isotope23 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all three of the images should be removed. They are grainy, poor quality, poorly cropped, taken from a side angle, and appear to be taken from a camera phone. These are not the kind of images that an encyclopedia article should have. Unless we can get properly scanned images of these newspaper articles, they should remain out of the article. Not a dog 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

This article is under attack by industry spindoctors. All content including linked images should be protected. Miracleimpulse 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Under attack by industry spindoctors? You can't be serious. Whatever. For those coming here via the request for protection, this discussion would probably also be iluminating: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax. Not a dog 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Protection for this page and all images has been requested here. Miracleimpulse 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Images themselves can't be protected. And Not a dog and Tregoworth aren't unknown vandalizers, they've been here for some time. Anom8trw8 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia

I think many of Miracleimpulses points are valid. The thesis that Sweetest Day was concocted by candy companies is credible and cited material supporting it should stay in the article. However, Miracleimpulse is being excessively paranoid towards the other editors. I don't think any of them are industry spin doctors. Does anybody here work for any candy or card related businesses?

Anyway, the "spin doctors" are right that the article should not be cluttered with dozens of photos of old-time candy tycoons. I do think the two currently-present newspaper shots are useful as illustrations and should stay until replaced by better versions. As for verifiability, news articles from the Cleveland Plain Dealer are far more qualified as reliable sources than promotional websites of candy and card companies. Also, newspaper articles are not primary sources by definition. Ask any history teacher. Primary sources are stuff like original documents from inside a company. That census record of that guy having a mortgage is a primary source. Newspaper articles are secondary sources, written by newspaper reporters based on original documents and interviews which are the primary sources. And unsourced materials on random web sites is basically crap.

It seems to me that you people are edit warring because you're mad at each other. Stuff is getting removed or edited not because there's anything wrong with it but only because the "other side" put it in. How about if you all take a break for a while and then try to approach this thing in a calmer fashion, making best efforts to be excellent to one another.

67.117.130.181 08:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments 67.117.130.181. Yes, it is my belief that most of the other editors of this article are spinning the article in favor of industry. This opinion is not a personal attack; I believe they are very good at what they are doing. Before my arrival on the scene here, none of them had ever edited the Sweetest Day article, and the article read almost exactly like the blurb on the back of a Hallmark Sweetest Day greeting card. One thing I noticed was that most of these editors edit Misplaced Pages rather relentlessly, almost as if to hide their true purpose in editing Misplaced Pages. Many of them have also followed me around to each site I have edited to reverse my edits, and they even had my user page (which I did not create) deleted. Now Not a dog has nominated virtually every image uploaded for the Sweetest Day article, including those which have remained on the page for months for deletion. The two images which have been allowed to stay in the article contain links to nearly 30 other images regarding Sweetest Day, many of which have public domain captions, news articles and editorials about the origins of Sweetest Day attached. These images are not cluttering up the Sweetest Day page in any way, yet they are there for interested readers to review if they so choose. If a picture speaks a thousand words, Not a dog is attempting to edit nearly 30,000 words out of the Sweetest Day article. Why would anyone wish to limit someone's access to such an abundance of available factual information? As stated before, improved quality images are on the way; I contacted The Cleveland Plain Dealer today seeking their assistance with images for this article. Not a dog should cease his attack and allow the new images time to arrive. The Sweetest Day article also currently contains at least three verisimilitudes, which are highly deceptive cleverly-worded promotional statements, which these editors insist must remain in the article. These verisimilitudes are all sourced to websites which advertise Sweetest Day using no real reference actually sourcing the statements. Finally, if you read the former edits of the Sweetest Day page, you will see a very clear pattern of information suppression and management. My observation of this pattern is not paranoia. It is perfectly justified and correct. And for the record, I am not angry at anyone: they are all anonymous and they are just doing their job.

Thank you again for your comments 67.117.130.181. Your input is appreciated. Miracleimpulse 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no connection to Sweetest Day or its inudstries in any way, I don't care about Sweetest Day, and I don't really care about this article other than ensuring it meets encyclopedic standards. You'll notice my only substantive edit was a good faith efforts to keep this article as encyclopedic as possible, reverting what I consider a possibly bad faith edit on the part of Miracelimpulse: (.

My nominating photos for deletion has nothing to do with this article per se, but rather are in accordance with the image deletion policy: they are all of extremely low quality (LQ), and except for the two that appear here, they are all orphaned (OR), (including many that make fair use claims that must be used in articles to be valid). Not a dog 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I consider Miracleimpulse's insinuation that I "edit Misplaced Pages rather relentlessly, almost as if to hide their true purpose in editing Misplaced Pages" an unacceptable and unbased personal attack, similar to accusing me of being some kind of "spindoctor". I've been editing here for months, and just stumbled upon this article recently. Whatever. Not a dog 11:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Origins and Facts About Sweetest Day
2. ^ Retail Confectioners International -- Sweetest Day
3. Sweetest Day History and Facts at theromantic.com