Talk:Bee Free Honee/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disputed

This is REALLY promotional, and some of the claims made in the article are inaccurate. KMF (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which claims you thought were inaccurate? 73.170.41.47 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: I second the question. Can you be more specific? = paul2520 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

By quoting their claims of sustainability without either support or criticism from outside the company, we are effectively endorsing their position. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Lack of evidence

There is not a scrap of evidence to support the assertion that this product is more sustainable than honey. As noted, it reads as an advertisement for the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeDee (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Add another voice to the chorus that this article is much more promotional than informative and that the sustainability claim is completely unsupported.--Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@GeeDee and Khajidha: The wording states, "The company aims to produce a sustainable honey substitute to save bees..." and "The makers of Bee Free Honee claim that..." so it's not asserting the product is more sustainable. Do either of you have suggestions to improve the language from sounding like an advertisement/promotional? = paul2520 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing a need for this article as opposed to a general article on vegan alternatives to honey. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And it IS stated as fact on the DYK link on the Main Page. --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CLAIM, we should avoid editorializing by using words such as "claim" so I have, once again, changed the verb to "say" which adheres to the neutral point of view policy. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's one way to make the article closer to compliance. Another is simply to delete the article entirely. It does not add anything much to the body of human knowledge; the vendors are quite free to advertise their product in the usual way. GeeDee (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Tags are mostly unwarranted

@KATMAKROFAN:: If you're going to pile on tags into {{multiple issues}} as you have, especially on such a short article, please take the time to come to the talk page and explain why you feel these are issues. Because I'm not seeing as much of this as problematic as you seem to.

• Disputed: I do not see a single fact inline so tagged. You were asked to be more specific above and you haven't been. If you continue not to, I think we should remove that tag.
• Peacock: I suppose you could interpret some of the article's language this way, but I've seen worse. A lot worse. And with an article this short, it's usually better to to just go through it and reword.
• Refimprove: As of now I see nothing uncited, so I'm going to take that out. If you have issues with the quality of the references, use a different tag, preferably inline, and open a section here.
• Advert: Sort of redundant if you've already used {{peacock}}. So I'm going to take it off.
• Notability: While it is probably better to use this than take it straight to AfD as someone on the Main Page talk page advocated, I would argue that any product that got on Shark Tank, a nationally broadcast television program where entrepreneurs take their products to businesspeople, some of whom are themselves notable, to get funding has a claim to notability. If you differ, please take it up here. I won't remove this one for now.

This is the sort of drive-by tagging that often looks little better than institutionalized vandalism and is part of the reason I no longer identify as a deletionist. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. I have removed the {{peacock}} after I think adequately rewording some parts, as well as the disputed tag, since I can't find any discrepancies wiith the references, aside from a small bit about the founding which I fixed. I also have a hard time buying that the company doesn't meet WP:GNG, but I almost universally lean inclusionist. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The current version is less promotional than the one from 3 april 2017, but there is still the list of stores and the list of donations that seem promotional to me. I don't see how they are relevant to an objective description of the product. If there is a good reason to mention them, it should be added in the article. The why it's sold in these particular stores would be the relevant fact.Jormund (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Jormund. Would it make more sense to reword to say something like, "this product is sold in stores around the United States" or "...in stores that specialize in organic/natural foods" or something more generic like that?

As far as donations, that was removed in this edit, though I would argue that this is about the wider impact of the product. It's not just a for-profit product, but one whose proceeds benefit other projects/research. Once again, maybe this could have been worded something different and more general. = paul2520 20:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Sugar substitutes" category

Does this product actually qualify as a "sugar substitute" when it is made with cane sugar? Judging from a cursory read of the two articles, I would say not. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point is valid. I used that category since Category:Sweeteners redirects to it. = paul2520 16:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly a peculiar redirect. I wonder about the history behind that decision. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1