Talk:Candy making

Politicization of Candy Making article
I respectfully dispute inclusion of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs under the History section.They violate the NPOV principles pertaining to balance in that they give undue weight to the topic of Gender Discrimination in an article about Candy Making. Gender Discrimination is a fine topic on its own but is not of significant importance to be included an article about Candy Making.

Gender discrimination issues only tangentially have anything to do with the actual topic of Candy Making. Let's keep the lens through which we view every topic a more neutral one. Surely whatever message the author of these paragraphs might want to convey about gender discrimination can be properly addressed elsewhere. It alienates many readers to turn even the remotest topic on Wiki into a political platform. There is enough criticism of Wiki bias as it is.

MrKiffy — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKiffy (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like a valid description of the situation at that time. More sources are needed, but no need for removal. The Banner talk 20:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO an article about a job is incomplete if it doesn't identify problems in the industry, such as safety hazards and discrimination.
 * If you view candy making as a fun hobby, then I can see why the problems of the professional labor force would seem irrelevant. However, most candy isn't made at home.  I think this belongs here.  I'd be happy to have the article expanded to talk about other labor issues.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with MrKiffy on this matter. The gender focus is given undue balance given its tangential relevance. The "History" section is almost entirely dominated by this issue, neglecting the more salient historical development of candy-making. An article may be "incomplete" if it doesn't "identify problems in the industry", however, firstly, these are historical, not contemporary problems and therefore have marginal relevance at best; secondly, this article has many more conspicuous omissions than the problems of the historical workforce, so the decision to prioritise this material would convey a bias; lastly, keep in mind that gendered disadvantage in the workforce is thought to have been endemic at the time period referred to, and is not peculiar to the field of candy-making, meaning it is best addressed more generally in a separate article. Fmc47 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

EEng, regarding this and this, so you think that noting safety hazards and discrimination is irrelevant to the article or trivial? Yes, readers are here to know about candy making, but the topic of candy making involves information about safety hazards and history as well. We cover history; we don't delete the parts that we personally don't want to read about it. We are here to build comprehensive articles. Like The Banner, I see no need for removal. And like WhatamIdoing, I feel that "an article about a job is incomplete if it doesn't identify problems in the industry, such as safety hazards and discrimination." I would revert you, but I know that you are likely to revert me. So this is a case where I will need to seek more views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The safety hazards are no different from those found in any other plant where food is boiled or fried. The gender issues were no different from those found in any other industry 100 years ago. It is silly to repeat such things in article after article after article. EEng 02:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Some safety hazards are specific to certain occupations. And how many readers do you think know that "In the late 19th century and especially the early 20th century, industrial candy making was almost exclusively a masculine affair, and home-based candy making was a feminine affair."? There are likely some readers who think women were involved in industrial candy making. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * How many readers do we think know the following? This piece of knowledge: "Women were mostly employed for wrapping and putting candies in packages or for hand-dipping candies in chocolate. The best-paid women were chocolate dippers, yet the wages of these skilled and experienced female workers were almost always lower than that of the worst-paid male machine operators." Did you know that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That women's wages were almost always lower than men's -- even in the same job -- is a well-known generality. That most occupations were gender-segregated is also well known. Whether it was men or the women, specifically, who were the chocolate dippers or the wrappers or the packagers tells the reader nothing useful that I can see. EEng 03:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I obviously disagree that the information you removed shouldn't be included. I'll wait and see what others who have been involved in this discussion state, or if they have anything else to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just restating your conclusion without addressing the arguments. Do you disagree with that women's wages were almost always lower than men's -- even in the same job -- is a well-known generality? Do you disagree with that most occupations were gender-segregated is also well known? Or do you feel that Whether it was men or the women, specifically, who were the chocolate dippers or the wrappers or the packagers is somehow useful for our readers to know? If so, in what possible way? EEng 04:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * More below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The cited source thought this was a relevant factor – it is discussed in some detail – and the justification for removing it appears to be an editor's personal belief that this situation is no different from any other industry (citation needed? In many industries at the time, women were indeed paid worse, but they also tended to be assigned low-skill positions, which is not as true in this industry), and that everyone knows all of that anyway, so it's supposedly not worth mentioning (articles are supposed to be complete and self-contained, including all the information that "everyone knows anyway").
 * EEng, I can't agree with this, and I'm kind of disappointed in the (apparent) thinness of your claims. Do you have any sources that back up your beliefs?
 * I also want to point out that the gender-based assignment of tasks was not, in every case, purely a matter of gender bias. I thought it might be too much detail to bother explaining, but one of the reasons women were hired as chocolate dippers and wrappers is because (on average) women's hands are cooler than men's, so the average woman was physically more suited to doing the work (with 19th century technology) without accidentally ruining the final product than the average man.  So, yes, in one way, it actually did matter that the dippers and wrappers were female.
 * But what matters in terms of policy isn't whether warm hands smudge chocolates. What matters is that a top-quality source spent more than a little attention on this subject, and that (AFAIK) no sources have contradicted these claims or said that it was unimportant, and that means that we should strongly consider including it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See also https://books.google.com/books?id=5li0CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA137 which says that in the US, this work was not only poorly paid in a gender-discriminatory way, but also racially divided. https://nest.latrobe/chocolate-women-gendered-history-behind-sweet-snack/ says that the gender divide happened in other countries, and that a major manufacturer was aiming for a 2:1 ratio of women:men – rather unusual for a factory at that time.  Australia had its own Female Confectioners Union, and separate unions persisted until 1948 – "history", but hardly the 19th century.  More recently, but without gender implications, the Dollar Sweets dispute was a major legal fight with a candy maker and the unions.  This is not just any old industry when it comes to labor issues.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The removal of the safety hazards etc. sounds to like as reasoning as "other misery exists, so let us remove it so nobody will know it". As far as I know we are building an encyclopedia to spread knowledge, not to hide the inconvenient truth. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, The Banner. We include many things on Wikipedia that are well-known. We don't exclude material based on "it's well known." Well, unless it's WP:POINTY or completely unnecessary. In this case, the fact that not all people, including children, will know of the information is reason enough to include it. That, and the fact that the information is comprehensive and supported by reliable sources. It's why, when Dorsetonian reverted here, I agreed with the "pertinent content in the history of candy making" argument. I see that WhatamIdoing restored some of the material. I'm obviously for the gender discrimination historical aspect being re-added as well. If what was there is deemed as too much, we can downsize it, but total removal is a detriment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I expect that the gender information will go back in, possibly even in an expanded form. I've ordered the book.  It might be useful for several articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Now and then one runs into a discussion so divorced from the reality of what adds to the reader's understanding that it's just not worth it. If y'all think that the article should include such DUH-worthy statements as Worker safety programs focus on reducing contact between workers and hot food or hot equipment and reducing splashing, knock yourselves out. While you're add it, you might want to tell readers of Bus driver that traffic accidents can hurt people, and that safety programs focus on not crashing into things. I've got other things to do. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a good sense of humour! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC) At least, I hope that your edit was humour
 * It lightens the burden of always being right. Have you visited The Museums? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most factory worker safety programs focus on things like lifting heavy things, slip and fall prevention, hazardous waste handling, and machinery/electrical lockouts, so this industry is kind of different in that regard, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Only candy making has hot equipment and hot product that can burn you. It's unique. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed that it was unique. I've only claimed that it was somewhat different from typical factory work.  Please feel free to present sources that say I'm wrong, of course.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's no different from any other process involving hot liquids. But like I said, I have better things to do. I'm unwatching. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gender/Feminism
The History section that talks about gender roles needs to be removed. It's irrelevant to the history of candy. 24.181.250.3 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)