Talk:Stick candy

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)

Candy Cane
This article needs to be synced with Candy cane. The research that went into it blows the history section of this article out of the water. The candy cane article states that they shared a common history but they split off in the 17th century. It's a problem that needs to be reconciled.

Should this article be tagged with ? -- BlindWanderer (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2010 (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 fourth exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association At Quincy Hall in the City of Boston Sept. 16, 1844. Published by Crocker and Brewster.
 * "The Exhibitions and Fairs of Massachusetts Charitable

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:
 * Old Fashioned Stick Candy at Rau's Country Store
 * Stick candy at CandyWarehouse
 * Stick candy at The Sweet Palace
 * Old Fashioned Stick Candy at Rau's Country Store
 * Stick candy at CandyWarehouse
 * Stick candy at The Sweet Palace
 * Old Fashioned Stick Candy at Rau's Country Store
 * Stick candy at CandyWarehouse
 * Stick candy at The Sweet Palace
 * Old Fashioned Stick Candy at Rau's Country Store
 * Stick candy at CandyWarehouse
 * Stick candy at The Sweet Palace
 * Stick candy at The Sweet Palace

An edit like that demonstrates no understanding of the External links guideline and the What Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not policy (note 'Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Third opinion (history) in the usual way (see Wikipedia:Third opinion). — 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 Wikipedia 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 consensus, 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
Are the sources in question appropriate references? See discussions above, especially Talk:Stick_candy. 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also listed at 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 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.

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. --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 Wikipedia 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  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, 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 Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 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)

They are not reliable sources - time to move on
I think the RSN discussion is clear that they are not reliable sources for what is currently under dispute. Time to move on. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If a commercial site states that a product is "the best" such product obviously we can't take their word for it. But if they're advertising a particular size (length and diameter), or stating that a particular form of stick candy contains cream, etc., that's important basic information that should be in the article, in order to have the best, most encyclopedic article on this subject. One editor attempted to remove all that basic information, and much more, a few days ago, but thankfully it has been restored. Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the overwhelming consensus is that your interpretation of the situation is wrong. Please respect WP:CON and move on.  They are not reliable sources for the information currently in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 20 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 not sourced by any reliable sources, and it was contested. Per WP:V, the information was removed. --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)
 * I chose to tag the article to stop the edit-warring and the disregard for the multiple policies and guidelines. I thought it best not to move on to other issues until we're all following WP:CON and WP:DR first. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not resort to untruths; it is un-Wikipedian. All those statements were very well and carefully sourced with the best possible sources. Please see for the version of the article just prior to the blanking of sources and text (all prior versions of the article are available in the page's history). In this light, we can see that the statement just above, "The information was removed because it was unsourced," was disingenuous. This is in addition to the more than 10 highly threatening messages the editor who removed the text has been leaving on my discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: the above comment has now been altered, and no longer implies that the removed text had been unsourced; for the diff showing the change of this comment, see . Badagnani (talk) 22:27, 19 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 Wikipedia"?--kelapstick (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic here is original research. If no one can answer my questions about whose research we're relying upon, then I think it's fair to say that it is our own research.  As pointed out above in Talk:Stick_candy, I'm not arguing for the removal of the information.  However, I do find it problematic that multiple editors would violate the core policy of WP:V by repeatedly reintroducing the material without proper sources.  I find it most productive when all editors are working together, following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a misunderstanding of a common vocabulary word, possibly by a Wikipedian whose primary language is not English. While the word "extraordinary" can mean "fantastic" its original meaning refers to something "out of the ordinary," that is, quite rare and not usual. As such, the term is quite appropriate in this context. Thank you, however, for your interest in improving this article. Let's work together to expand it even more rather than working very hard, for whatever reason, to attempt to remove basic information about this candy such as its typical dimensions and flavors. Badagnani (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Advertisements as references
First, WP:PRIMARY is very clear: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." While we could just cite "candy retailer XXX sells them in YYY sizes," this would be promotional for such retailers, violating WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV.

When I first saw this article, the references section had 25 entries, 11 of which were links to the sales pages from 6 different retailers. Let's imagine for a second that hadn't added http://www.rauscountrystore.com/browse.cfm/2,32.html as an external link, but instead had noticed how other candy retailer links were being used in the article. Wouldn't he be justified in adding 35 new references to the 35 different flavors of stick candy that rauscountrystore.com sells? What's to stop each and every candy retailer in the world from adding links to their flavors and sizes and types of stick candy as well? --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Second, WP:SELFPUB is also clear: "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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source."

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

--Ronz (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
 * 2) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 4) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 5) there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
 * 6) the article is not based primarily on such sources;


 * OK, I have to admit, I am truly impressed here Ronz! Not only with your research, but with your willingness to approach the matter from the group consensus point of view, and work on an acceptable solution.  I agree 100% that we can't allow this to turn into a linkfarm.  And that 11 out of 35 references violates the spam policy.  Now, I would hope that whichever 1 or 2 references that meet this "...acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations." criteria won't become an issue.  I would also strongly suggest that the group work on some of the other items mentioned - to wit:


 * "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."


 * suggestion standard sizes range in length from 4 to 7 inches, and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter. Items measuring up to 14" in length and 2" in diameter can also be purchased.


 * "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."


 * suggestion state the year (say 1846) that it was first known to be produced, and change the ending to has been marketed as old fashioned candy.


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


 * suggestion maybe we could do without this particular line.

glad to see this is moving forward in a productive manner. — Ched (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Object to removing the sentence about using stick candy in other candy, as it was properly sourced. Further, all sources were the best available and they should be restored. Badagnani (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Option
Correct me if I am wrong Ronz, but I believe that your primary concern with this is the "references" equate to spam. Out of your last 1,000 edits, 278 of them have something to do with spam (removing it or part of the WikiProject Spam) so you clearly work to fight spam on Wikipedia, which is an important job here.

You do not doubt that stick candy comes in the sizes or flavours that are listed above, however you think that sources listed can not be used since they will violate WP:LINKSPAM. The result is the material must be take out because the references can not be included in the article and therefore the content is unverifiable and adding the content without the references constitutes original research. I propose an alternative option. For the lead section:
 * Stick candy (also called candy stick, barber pole candy, or barber pole) is a long, cylindrical variety of hard candy, in lengths four to seven inches in length and 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter. In some cases up to 14 inches in length and two inches in diameter.

While I agree it is not nearly as good as using traditional reliable sources, it is a compromise. The candy suppliers may not be considered reliable sources, however the statements on their page with regards to the dimensions can be considered correct.

If I am wrong with my assessment please correct me, I see this as a way to include the article which is indeed verifiable without including links that can be considered spam in the mainspace. --kelapstick (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohhh ... that's good. I didn't know we could do that! — Ched (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we can do it I don't know if it is allowed--kelapstick (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm all for it - count me in! I say we go for it.  Whatcha think there Ronz? ... everyone?  If the "Policy Police" come a bangin on the door, we'll address it then. (Did I mention that I'm in favor of this solution?) — Ched (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We must be reasonable in everything we do. If the sources provided are the best available, they should be used. This solution seems more like a game, and is unreasonable. Badagnani (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya know what? This whole train wreck is on a fast track to an AN|AN/I posting. Sorry, but I do not want to be a part of it.  Best of luck to all. — Ched (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The result is the material must be take out because the references can not be included in the article and therefore the content is unverifiable and adding the content without the references constitutes original research." Not at all. WP:V states:"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The option I had hoped for, if we cannot find reliable and independent sources, was coming up with wording that would not be challenged at all, by our working together to find acceptable wording that is not challenged or likely to be challenged by carefully avoiding any WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, and WP:UNDUE problems. That way we get around the problems brought up in Talk:Stick_candy, and discussed since. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally have looked for reliable independent sourcing for quite a while yesterday (when I found the three that I added above), and have come up with nothing, hopefully someone else has better luck with it than I did.--kelapstick (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's why I'm offering this as an option that's possible without such sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible references
Sweets: A History of Candy, Tim Richardson, ISBN 1582343071. This is the only book I've been able to find that has online access (from amazon). --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely to be sourced
In this edit, I removed content which was personally verifiable but unlikely to ever be reported in a secondary source. The material was re-added here. What do others think about the content? ← Spidern  →  17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My only concern is that it was done without an edit summary and is the same type of editing which is under dispute in the discussions above. Other than that, it's not the type of material that I'd expect anyone would challenge for verification, but it's not material that's highly valuable either. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In order to have a properly encyclopedic and comprehensive article (which we do wish to have for our encyclopedia and users), the manner of consumption is essential (as, for example, we have for Fun Dip). Without this, the article would inadequately describe this subject. Badagnani (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

SPAM
No one is calling anyone a spammer. Sorry that this fact needs to be repeated yet again.

WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."

Given that these links are promotional and not reliable sources, I think they fit the criteria for spam. See previous discussions, especially Talk:Stick_candy --Ronz (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)