Misplaced Pages

Talk:Stick candy

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badagnani (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 18 February 2009 (→Weasel words tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:40, 18 February 2009 by Badagnani (talk | contribs) (→Weasel words tags)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconFood and drink Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

A fact from Stick candy appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 December 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/December.
Misplaced Pages

Need to add a list of flavors

Need flavors. Badagnani (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Entire list of flavors blanked on 4 February 2009, without prior discussion nor consensus. Badagnani (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ingredients

Which color and flavor ingredients have been used (artificial or natural), from the 1800s until today? Is corn syrup used today instead of cane sugar? Badagnani (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out Apell's Up-to-Date Candy Teacher . Candy stick discussion starts on p. 64 and is rather technical, but the book also discusses several of the ingredients and how to prepare them. What does horehound taste like?ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as the flavor of horehound, go pick up some old-fashioned horehound lozenges (possibly artificially flavored these days), then get some dried horehound herb in bulk from your local natural foods co-op. The lozenges taste a little bit brown sugary/root beer-ish, and the herb tastes a little bit like some kind of herbal tea, herbaceous and a little tannic. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Derived from penida?

See . Badagnani (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

History

Dug this up in Google Books:‎
United States Congressional Serial Set‎
by United States Government Printing Office - United States - 1835‎
Page 65‎
"During the Christmas holidays 30 samples of assorted candies, such as gum drops, cocoanut sticks, French candy, peanut brittle, stick candy, etc., ..."‎
Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So this would be the earliest reference? Please add it to the article. Badagnani (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is the search. Keep in mind that the dates of serial publications in Google Books are often inaccurate, as they often list the earliest date of publication of the serial, but don't give the actual date of the issue in question. It would be good to get the full text first. Badagnani (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lobster Candy subsection

I've found some refs on lobster candy. Not much, but enough to make clear that it is it's own thing. There was a question about "Lobster and Stick Candy", suggesting it could possible have been one thing. That ref would be okay to restore since there's no indication that anything called "stick and lobster candy" exists, and every indication that "lobster candy" is its own thing.

  • "There, too, are exposed massed of lobster candy, not made out of the shellfish itself, but somewhat in imitation of it."... "What have we here," said Mrs. Ellmaker, as she opened the first parcel, "lobster candy and gibraltars!* well they look nice put the..." From The Violet: A Christmas and New year's Gift By Eliza Leslie 1837, pages 197 and 199.
  • "The Exhibitions and Fairs of Massachusetts Charitable

The fourth exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association At Quincy Hall in the City of Boston Sept. 16, 1844. Published by Crocker and Brewster.

p. 25 1024 J. Bradshaw, Boston. Samples of Lobster and Stick Candy A sample of Lobster Candy, in a very large roll, the best specimen of Candy in the Fair,- well made of good materials.

p. 61 1105 William Lee, Boston. Samples of Lobster and Stick Candy, and Peppermints; the lobster candy is very good, the stick candy is excellent... A Diploma

p. 62 928 J. Bradshaw, Boston Lobster Candy, in large rolls. Stick, Braided, and Rock Candy.

p. 168 1358, and 1603 Jesse Bradshaw, Boston. Twelve Jars of Candy, and Fifty-Nine Pounds of Lobster Candy. These were superior; and the committee reccomend a (spaced) Diploma"

ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's time to start a Lobster candy article (with images, if possible). Badagnani (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Haha, only problem is I still don't have any idea what Lobster candy is or what it looks like! :) Boston, can you hear me??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
From the references I've found, this would fit more into lollipops; all info points to "lobster pops" or "lobster barley pops"... maybe the "stick" in the candy is simply the stick the pop is mounted on?Irontobias (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Seems to be a good fit. Hmmm... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use "Discussion"

Please use "Discussion" before unilaterally removing huge numbers of links. The links are there to support the text as references providing actual, real-life examples of the various types of stick candy mentioned in the article. Thank you for your consideration and future care in editing. Badagnani (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples are not sources. Highly promotional examples are linkspam. What's to discuss? --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've also tagged the article as including original research, given these unreliable sources are being used give examples only of what is otherwise unsourced. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from calling another long-time, sincere, and highly productive Wikipedian a spammer. That's simply not proper. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's using the term "spammer"? Bossman1103 certainly spammed a link, but I don't believe anyone has called him a spammer. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

This edit by user Badagnani restored the following links:

  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • <ref></ref>
  • at
  • at
  • at

An edit like that demonstrates no understanding of the External links guideline and the What Misplaced Pages is not policy, and evidences a lack of comprehension of what encyclopedic content is and and how good editors rely upon independent reliable sources to support it.

If stick candy is an encyclopedic subject, independent reliable sources (not commercial links to price lists, product stock lists, and stores) will support that. — Athaenara ✉ 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A third opinion like yours indicates a lack of understanding of the civility guideline and the need to be resourceful in verifying the accuracy of article content. There are several policies that support the use of breaking rules when beneficial to the project. All that being said, I think the article can live without the links, although if someone comes along and changes the measurements (as has happened before) editors will simply have to waste time searching for the measurements and sizes all over again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
How's this rephrasing of one paragraph:

Such an edit suggests that brushing up on the External links guideline (for example, point 5 in the Links normally to be avoided section) and the What Misplaced Pages is not policy (note "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" in the introduction to the Content section) could refresh an understanding of what encyclopedic content is and and how editors rely upon independent reliable sources to support it.

Better? — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The intructions on giving a third opinion suggest: "Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way." I think stating your opinion that the use of commercial websites to verify content isn't appropriate would have been fine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Was this third opinion solicited via a hand-picked off-Wiki communication? Badagnani (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't discuss internal wikipedia matters off-wiki. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you can find some good source on the size and measurements of stick candy. That would be great. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Then where, exactly, was this third opinion solicited? Badagnani (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It was posted on Misplaced Pages:Third opinion#Active disagreements (history) in the usual way (see Misplaced Pages:Third opinion#How to list a dispute). — Athaenara ✉ 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I see clear consensus to remove the links, and have done so. No one has responded to the concerns that including them violates WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK, and WP:OR. Like ChildofMidnight, I think other sources can be found if anyone is concerned with verifying the information. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No such consensus for the gutting of this article's references exists. Either we aim to have the most encyclopedic article possible, or we don't. Removing references for highly specific points covered in an article (such as particular lengths or widths for actual stick candy, or showing that the candy is often referred to in advertisements as an "old time" form of candy), then replacing those with "fact" tags, is simply improper. Like many food products this is largely a commercial product and thus sources giving such specifications are sometimes commercial in nature. Calling another long-time, sincere, and highly productive editor a spammer for adding such links to real-life examples, supporting the text of the article, in an effort to have the most encyclopedic article possible is simply out of line. In the future, when listing a disagreement somewhere, please post the link to the call for third opinions at the article's discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but consensus is clear.
"Calling another long-time, sincere, and highly productive editor a spammer for adding such links to real-life examples, supporting the text of the article, in an effort to have the most encyclopedic article possible is simply out of line." No one is doing so. This has already been pointed out. Besides, this is not the venue for resolving such concerns and has nothing to do with the consensus here.
"please post the link to the call for third opinions" Again, this is not the proper venue for such disputes, and has nothing to do with the consensus here. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Consenus, but "External links guideline and the What Misplaced Pages is not" both have a lot of valuable information about these types of links. Maybe if some better Secondary Sources could be found it would help resolve the situation. Just a thought. — Ched (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive comment. Sources of all types have been assiduously sought out and added. However, like many food products this is largely a commercial product, and thus typical print sources such as books, encyclopedias, journals, etc. in the modern day do not cover the particular points of information contained in the dozens of references that were blanked, and sources presenting such specifications are sometimes commercial in nature. We endeavor to have the absolute best, most encyclopedic article possible and the sources provided are the absolute best available (conventional print sources such as books for some points of information, and websites of companies producing such candy for other points). Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It is highly improper that the many removed links are presented in a long list above without the actual passages they supported (which were blanked wholesale, unilaterally, earlier today, without prior discussion nor consensus). Without adding such context, comments whether the links are important or not will have no context, something that is of utmost importance in a understanding of this article and how to ensure that it is as complete and encyclopedic as possible. Please add the statements which the links supported in order to allow those commenting here an understanding of the passages the links supported, and thus why the links were there. Badagnani (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking

This blanking is highly improper, and does not contribute to the most encyclopedic article possible. Please reverse this blanking immediately. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the material as promotional and original research, per the discussions above. I suggest you seek further WP:DR methods if you want to overturn the clear consensus here. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please reverse your unreasonable, highly WP:POINTy, massive blanking that seriously depletes the quality of this article. Removing sources backing up basic information about the subject about this article, then entirely deleting, without prior comment nor consnsus, many sentences of text that the references supported, under the reasoning that it was unsourced, is un-Wikipedian at best, and shows a malicious and spiteful intent at worst. In all cases it leads to having an article that is gutted and which no longer contains important basic information about this item. Badagnani (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're unable to follow WP:TALK and WP:CON, don't be surprised if your comments are ignored. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I never leave threatening messages on another editor's discussion page, which you did to mine several times. Please undo your highly damaging, undiscussed blanking. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More massive blanking

Again, massive blanking; please reverse such blanking, as, by gutting content providing our readers basic information about this subject, it does not contribute to the best, most encyclopedic article possible on this subject. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and keep our users most prominent in our minds. This edit does neither, and is highly improper. Badagnani (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on edit summary

Regarding my edit summary, "removed another promotional link, this time a dead link as well that was commented as being questionable" for : Sorry that my edit summary didn't indicate it was also a revert back to the consensus version. I got ahead of myself there, distracted by the comment I found with the Williams-Sonoma link, "This source doesn't say anything about stick candy. It could be any shape of peppermint candy that is used, not necessarily stick candy." --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "consensus version," as there is no consensus for your massive blanking, which has gutted this article content signally important to an encyclopedic treatment and understanding of this subject. Kindly stop violating the 3RR rule, as doing so is not proper, and concentrate your efforts instead on productive improvement of our encyclopedia. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional blanking without discussion nor consensus

See . Please stop. Badagnani (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Consumption" section - more examplespam

The "Consumption section contains two paragraphs. The first is completely unsourced, and describes that stick candy can be sucked or chewed, but oddly doesn't mentioning licking. The second paragraph has sources, but these sources are only examples for each type of use that is listed. While these links aren't as overtly promotional as the ones we used to have to sales sites, it's still a case of using primary sources without any secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Also, it is highly improper to blank very large areas of text before commenting about such blanking, then to comment only after you've blanked. It's also disingenuous to remove valid links backing up discrete passages in an article, then several minutes later to blank such passages massively, unilaterally, and without discussion "because they were unsourced." Please restore the blanked text, and don't do that again. Badagnani (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Disagreement over sources

Template:RFCecon Are the sources in question appropriate references? See discussions above, especially Talk:Stick_candy#Please_use_.22Discussion.22. 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex, as this is a food- and culture-related article, not simply an economy-related article. Badagnani (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I see "candywarehouse.com" listed at least 5 times, it need only be listed once to provide reference. This is not a confirmation of the quality of the link, simply a statement that I don't see a need to repeat basically the same information multiple times for cherry, orange, lime, or whatever flavor. — Ched (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
See number 4 under Important points to remember on Misplaced Pages:External links. — Ched (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about the actual text backed up by each source? If you don't, it's impossible to evaluate your comment here. Thanks, Badagnani (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Identifying references with context

In order to make it easier to identify what links and content is under dispute: --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede section

usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

and is often marketed as an "old fashioned" candy.

Production and marketing section

Stick candy comes in a wide assortment of flavors, sometimes quite exotic, such as root beer, sassafras, horehound, cinnamon, butterscotch, piña colada, peppermint, clove, spearmint, licorice, cotton candy, and wintergreen.

although they are also sold in bulk.

Some varieties of stick candy are filled with sweet cream.

Consumption section

It can also be used in other candy, particularly in combination with chocolate.

References

See reference list at the bottom of this page, any new added references below this section will not show up if the {{Reflist}} template is located here.--kelapstick (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This is very helpful. The references appear to support the important basic information about commercially available stick candy such as its dimensions, use of "old time" as modifier when marketing the item, availability of cream-filled stick candy, etc. Badagnani (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Note that the concerns about the use of these links as references were previously addressed in a WP:THIRD request, with the response here: Talk:Stick_candy#Third_opinion. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed the advertisements

I've removed the advertisements being used as examples in the article, again. If you think they should be restored, please address how these are reliable sources, as well as the other concerns brought up by myself and Athaenara. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the content that was related to these sources, in the hope that independent, reliable sources may be found. --Ronz (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion was to hide the references so they show up on the edit page so it's clear how this information was verified. Otherwise these basic descriptors are easily challenged. Those were the best sources we could find. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Restore sources. Please don't remove sources supporting basic information about the subject of this article without consensus, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please address the problems with the information rather than edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The information isn't a problem, the sources are. If you can find better sources please use them. If not please restore the ones we found, hidden would be okay with me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to just remove the information then as unverified. That prevents any excuse to rely upon advertisements as sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop the edit-warring. Note that WP:V clearly states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Although not ideal, the sources are more than adequate to verify the information they're being used to support. Please stop stirring up trouble for no reason. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please stop edit warring and follow WP:DR instead. I'll be reverting per WP:V. These are not reliable sources, and no one has argued otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
While the candy factory links might not be encyclopedic in nature, they do fall under the guidelines of acceptable secondary sources. Upon reviewing WP:RS the following seems to be appropriate. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" Given that the company has a vested interest in providing accurate information with regards to their product, I see no reason to dispute the credible part, the authoritative part, - and it's self-evident that it is the "subject at hand" part. While I see no need to supply a half dozen links to the same site (just to post different flavors of candy), I would hope that the editors could reach an agreement to one link to meet Misplaced Pages guidelines in respect to supplying references. Far too much of this back and forth reverting seems to be more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT. Please try to find an agreement, then move on to improving the community with edits of substance. — Ched — Ched (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall why the citations weren't formatted so the citation only showed up once in the references section, but I am probably to blame. The reason for citing the flavors was to make sure only verifiable flavors were included. Many flavors are very unusual and the flavors are a significant feaure of this historic candy. If spurrious ones were added it would be difficult to tell which were legitimate without some sourcing. And like the size of the candies, the flavors are a pretty integral feature. I am always willing to compromise, but if those seeking changes were willing to make the effort of finding some sources or improving the article in some way, instead of just interfering with the good faith efforts of those who created and built the article, I would be more inclined to appreciate their efforts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This was primarily the type of diffs I was referring to. I was primarily saying that using the <ref name="Name"> tag would resolve a lot of the issues. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this type of back and forth. The text seems to be descriptive, and not promotional - so I can't understand the objection to it being in the article. The statement "usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter." is verified by that candywarehouse.com site. And while I wouldn't hope to see the candywarehouse.com site listed all over the place in a spam endeavor - the site does indeed verify the size of the candy. If someone could explain the objection to listing the size of the candy, I might be able to offer a little more input. I would think that anyone working on an article Stick Candy, would want to list the size of the candy, production methods, type of sale promotions, etc. Note that I'm saying "types" of sales promotions, not "actual" promotions themselves. Documenting and citing TV ads, radio ads, and such is fine, but you have to be careful you're not reproducing the advertisements themselves (aka spam and advert tags). — Ched (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Ched's claim that the sources may be reliable: Thanks for addressing one of the concerns about the links. Unfortunately, self-published sources are normally not allowed, for some of the reasons you later give, spam and advertising. See WP:SELFPUB. If you would like to pursue this disagreement over the reliability of these sources, I suggest WP:RSN--Ronz (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ched, Badagnani, and ChildofMidnight. The sources are reliable. Per consensus, the material stays. I like Ched's suggestion that this edit war go into WP:LAME. See the Lame talk page. Ikip (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

← In reply to Ronz: Thank you for your offer to "pursue this disagreement", but I'm afraid I must decline. I would be hard-pressed to find an individual page on the Internet that could compel me to engage in a disagreement that I wasn't willing to walk away from. I'm here simply out of a response to the RfC, and my input is solely an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can live with. (Hopefully you've noticed that I have not made a single edit to the article). If you would like, you could always present your reasons for believing that the statistical facts of the candy's shape and size should not be in the article. I'm sure it's not simply a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I'm willing to consider your viewpoints. You mentioned WP:SELFPUB, but I find that the site is actually published by shopping.yahoo.com. You mentioned "self-published sources are normally not allowed", and I see the word "normally". I read the selfpub link, and read: "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", and understood the "is acceptable", "established experts", and "whose work in the relevant field" parts to be addressing the debate here. If someone feels that a trip to WP:RSN could supply a resolution, then by all means, I suggest such a move. If you'd like me to provide my input there, drop me a note, and I'd be more than happy to share my viewpoints. I greatly appreciate the fact that this topic is important to all editors here, and I value the thoughts of all those involved. I would hope that there must be some way to diffuse this "disagreement". I'm open to suggestions, and I'm willing to help in any way that I can. There's a lot of work that can be accomplished to make this community a better place. If we all stop to look at the larger picture, perhaps there is some middle ground that could be reached. The time spent reverting, and arguing over fine points could be much better spent by developing the articles. I'm not sure I can provide much more than that, but I'm always available if you would like further input. — Ched (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If no one is willing to take this to WP:RSN, I think it's best to conclude that they're not reliable sources.
As pointed out in Talk:Stick_candy#Third_opinion, trying to use these advertising links as sources these "sources" violates WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:OR.
Adding the contested information without any sources violates WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
To help solve this problem, I would suggest editors find better sources. If editors are concerned about WP:V, they are welcome to find better sources. Ikip (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Great! While we're looking for sources, the information should be removed per WP:V. I'll move it here for easier reference. --Ronz (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Information that needs verification

Indicated by section and bolded below: --Ronz (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Kelapstick has added some new references, verifying some of the information. I think this is a great way to keep track while the article is protected. If no one objects to new references after a day or so, I think it would be appropriate to request the article be updated by using Template:Editprotected. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede section

Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

The candy has a long history in the United States, where it is believed to have been developed, and is often marketed as an "old fashioned" candy.

Production and marketing section

Stick candy comes in a wide assortment of flavors, sometimes quite exotic, such as root beer, sassafras, horehound, cinnamon, butterscotch, piña colada, peppermint, clove, spearmint, licorice, cotton candy, and wintergreen.

Stick candy is generally sold shrink-wrapped in clear plastic, and traditionally displayed for sale in wide-mouthed glass jars. They were originally sold by the piece for a nickel or dime. As of 2008 they more typically sell for 25 cents to 75 cents each, although they are also sold in bulk.

Some varieties of stick candy are filled with sweet cream.

Consumption section

It can also be used in other candy, particularly in combination with chocolate.

Page protection

The page has been fully protected for a week to prevent further edit warring. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Current state of page

I'm fine to keep the article as is, with the article-level and in-line tags, for a month or so in order to give editors time to find proper sources that address all the problems with the content. I thought moving the information to the talk page was a good solution as well, to prevent the reintroduction of primary sources that are not reliable sources. Either way, such sources can no longer be added in. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Note that I have brought up the use of the use of sales websites such as this for referencing candy length and flavour at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Stick candy. I have personally looked for a "traditional" reliable source, but have come up empty handed as of yet.--kelapstick (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this link will help you folks sort things out or not - falls under the category of "TLDR" (Too long, didn't read) for me. Sorry it's come to this, but hopefully everyone can get on the same page while things are locked down. Good luck — Ched (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words tags

The guideline is WP:WEASEL. I've copied the content in question below, bolding the weasel words: --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • "Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter."
  • "Stick candy comes in a wide assortment of flavors, sometimes quite exotic, such as root beer, sassafras, horehound, cinnamon, butterscotch, piña colada, peppermint, clove, spearmint, licorice, cotton candy, and wintergreen. They also come in a wide variety of fruit and berry flavors. There are also varieties containing two different flavors swirled together."
Removing the words usually, some extraordinary and sometimes quite exotic would have been a better option than deleting the entire sentence (as had been multiple times) or adding the WW tag. The citation needed would have been sufficient.--kelapstick (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The information was not deleted because of the weasel word problems. The information was removed because it was unsourced and contested, per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
So why did you leave the content intact and add the WW tag rather than improving the article by deleting the words usually extraordinary etc.?--kelapstick (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not resort to untruths; it is un-Wikipedian. All those statements were very well sourced with the best possible sources. Badagnani (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research tags

The core content policy is WP:OR. I've copied the content in question below, bolding the content that appears to be original research: --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • "Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, usually four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter, but in some extraordinary cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter."
  • "The candy has a long history in the United States, where it is believed to have been developed, and is often marketed as an 'old fashioned' candy."
  • "Stick candy comes in a wide assortment of flavors, sometimes quite exotic, such as root beer, sassafras, horehound, cinnamon, butterscotch, piña colada, peppermint, clove, spearmint, licorice, cotton candy, and wintergreen. They also come in a wide variety of fruit and berry flavors. There are also varieties containing two different flavors swirled together."
These are minor problems. I shouldn't have bothered tagging them. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "It can also be used in other candy, particularly in combination with chocolate."

In all these cases other than the minor ones I point out above, primary sources are never going to properly verify this information without there being original research involved. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting the length of a candy stick from a website where they sell them is no more original research than getting it from a newspaper article. Original research would be going out to buy as many different pieces of stick candy as you can and using a tape measure to get the length and diameter, and reporting it here. I think my sources took care of the old fashioned, although maybe it should be changed to "referred to as" to keep in line with the references. The minor issue of the wide variety, I do have a NYT article that has a reference to 32 varieties, that is a wide variety in my opinion, but in the spirit of non-weasel words perhaps "available in at least 32 flavours" is more appropriate? I will find it. Not sure about the chocolate one.--kelapstick (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Note on the sizes it says "usually" and "in some extraordinary cases." How do measurements from primary sources verify those parts of the statement? Who's research are we relying upon to determine what is usual and what is extraordinary? Why are any selection of primary sources being used to determine what measurements we list? --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing the POV points such as usually and extraordinary from the statement is a more productive approach than removing the entire statement, at least the reader would be given some order of magnitude as to which size the product comes in rather than "Stick candy is sold in lengths and diameters that we are not allowed to discuss on Misplaced Pages"?--kelapstick (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Please do not add content below this section. References added below this section will not show up in this reference list.--kelapstick (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. Groovy Candies price list
  2. Candy Warehouse price list
  3. Candy Warehouse price list
  4. Candy Warehouse price list
  5. Candy Crate price list
  6. Bulk Candy Store price list
  7. Candy Warehouse website
  8. Cane and Reed stick candies product listing
  9. Groovy Candies price list
  10. Candy Warehouse website
  11. Williams-Sonoma, The Original Peppermint Bark. Accessed 2008.12.15.
  12. Puleo, Gary (2009), "Celebrating Washington", The Times Harold {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  13. Randall, Laura (2005), "Ojai, Calif.: The Anti-L.A.", The Washington Post, p. P01 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  14. Gabriel, Alice (December 12), "WESTCHESTER AT ITS BEST; Charlie Brown Would Smile", The New York Times {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
Categories:
Talk:Stick candy Add topic