Talk:National Honey Bee Day

[Untitled]
I removed the one link that was controversial. I am not affiliated with anyone or any group cited in this article. It was written for the express purpose of ensuring the National Honey Bee Day is succinctly described.

Sources are the USDA (the US government agency that formalized the "Day") and nationalhoneybeeday.org (the group that organized the "Day" to begin with) -- as is described and attributed in the article. If you have further questions, please ask on this talk page.

Tawster (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV: Neutrality was disputed without noting what the dispute is. So... I advocate removing that from the page. After rereading the page, there seems to be nothing but matter-of-fact data presented.

As for [Close Relationship] COI, I am a beekeeper unaffiliated with the two groups cited in the article - the USDA and the NationalHoneyBeeDay.org folks. I am writing about a National Day that matters probably only to beekeepers, primarily. I welcome someone to vet the information and edit it to tone down any bias that may have creeped in. As noted in the above paragraph, I attempted to be as matter-of-fact as possible. I know about the day. I honor the day with my fellow beekeepers. There was no wikipedia article, so... I wrote one.

I also intend to write a similar article for National Honey Month and National Pollinator Week.

Tawster (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

POV issues
Hi... since you are a new editor, I believe that your edits were in good faith. Unfortunately there were some problems with your contributions that got the article flagged for neutrality and COI.


 * 1) The tone of the article must be written from that of a dispassionate third party. Language such as "grassroots effort" and "The celebration we started in 2009" is considered "peacock" wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. I have toned these down.
 * 2) First-person articles like "I" and "we" are not considered encyclopedic. A formal, third-party tone is required, which I have done as well.
 * 3) Mission statements are inherently problematic as they are generally full of platitudes that contain little useful information. Have a look at Avoid mission statements for more info.
 * 4) I had to remove the entire Mission section because it was copied verbatim from here, which is a copyrighted source. Doing this is a copyright violation. An organization may donate its copyrighted material but must follow this specific procedure to do so. Even if it's accepted, anything added to an article must still satisfy the requirements of notability, neutrality and verifiability.

Since you've mentioned that you are a beekeeper, and therefore have a strong interest and emotional attachment to the subject, I'd be extra careful to stick to plain, factual information. I've removed some of the maintenance tags but left one for improved references. If there is or has been significant coverage from reliable sources that can add to the article, I would suggest putting those in. Good luck! --Drm310 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

--

Please note that the word grassroots is a particular term that describes a fairly specific process, and nothing more. So, in the future, I would advise avoid having that word flag something as "peacock" wording. Except in one context: Politics. The rest. Whatever. What you have done is reasonable. There is some improvement, and some degradation. But I won't quibble over trivialities. I.e., "Good enough for government work". Thanks... I think. ;) Tawster (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)