Talk:Candy cane

Candy canes invented in the US

Why is this story about Cologne still in the article ten years after it's been repeatedly pointed out to be false. All of the earliest citations for candy cane are American. Yes, there are citations of the legend. But they are citations of the legend existing, not its accuracy. As pointed out in the article on stick candy, there is solid proof that twisted stick candy was made in the US, namely 19th Century newspapers. Besides that, candy canes are most popular in the US, followed by Britain, followed by Europe, showing a US origin. 74.76.189.192 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Folklore about Folklore?

Although mentioned as "folklore" no real evidence is presented to prove that this story is even folklore. Can any ridiculous idea now be added to a wikipage under the disclaimer of "folklore"? It's not really folklore, it's just folklore about a folklore. The Homeless Guy (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not just in North America

Candy Canes are also popular around Christmas in the UK. Perhaps that should be changed to say that they are popular over here as well or just say that they are popular without making specific note of locations? 213.78.183.91 (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Candy cane is actually a J for Jesus?

I heard that the candy cane is actually a J. This represents Jesus the centre of the Christmas Story. The red represents his blood shed to save all men and the white represents his sinless past. Has anyone else ever heard of this (possible) story? (Thebandweekly 23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

• It's covered in the Urban legends section. ‣tregoweth (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Snopes.com states that is not true. It says that candy canes were created sort of like taffy by twisting and comining colors together. Tweedle20 (talk)Tweedle20 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

Perhaps a section on flavors/colors would be approprate?

I was thinking, perhaps there should be a section that details the most common flavors and the corresponding stripe combinations. Pidey 13:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The White Stripes Candy Cane Children song + use of the 2 colours (+black)

Could be interesting to cover on this page. From the WS wiki:

.. In some interviews, the group has said that the colors red and white refer to peppermint candy, a symbol of childhood innocence ..

Also check the Candy Cane Children song-page;

Candy Cane Children is also a term used to describe fans of the Red stipes that came from his blood and sex.

Gränna

the _aforementioned_ city of granna — aforementioned where? 87.11.23.236 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. The previous mention of it was removed in this revision. I'm not sure why, because that means we lose the information about the stripes first appearing in Gränna. Maybe it was not verifiable... I haven't looked at the page cited as the source. Anyway, I removed the word 'aforementioned' and added a link to the Gränna page. --Angelastic (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup - Explanation of edits

I have been wanting to clean up this article since I saw it last month. I am not a very experienced Wikipedian, so if I am using an incorrect format or anything, please feel free to correct and let me know. I just felt like I needed to make this article better! Here's what I did:

Responses to Discussion requests

• Deleted self-contradictory items, seeking to replace them with sourced information where possible.
• Changed "North American" to "Western" to reflect popularity of candy canes in UK. I do not actually know what countries they are popular in, but it seems reasonable to assume Europe. At present, this is unsourced - please let me know if you find any.
• J for Jesus allegory is covered under "modern reinterpretations" but it must be said it is NOT based on history.
• Link added to Wikimedia Commons images of candy canes.
• Talked about the stripes - according to sources, we don't actually know where they came from or why, we just know when they started being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorenCombs (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Remaining to be done

• Still needs a section on common flavors. At this time I only have a bit of info about how peppermint started being used.

• I'm too tired to cover the White Stripes song right now. If you want to, please put it somewhere under "in popular culture"

• I saw a discussion request about Gränna. I have not checked for information about this place being the origin of the candy cane.

• I still feel like this article could use a lot more information and background. I created some sections which are at present a little sparse, and ideally I would hope we could get some more information. If not, they may need to be condensed.

Sourcing

There were a variety of vague and conflicting statements and I have tried to add substance to the article by sticking to sources, adding more background info from said sources, and trying to use only sources that mention their own sources. There are a veritable smorgasbord of online articles trumpeting various candy cane traditions with nary a source in sight for any of them. It was difficult to find what I would consider reliable sources.

Right now, I have two - a Snopes source and an article written for InventHelp. They were chosen because they do cite sources; however, they both use Webb Garrison's "Treasury of Christmas Stories". I would prefer at least one article that has a different print source to add more reliability to this article. Any ideas?

Deleted Things

I deleted "grape" from list of traditional flavors - I have never heard of a grape-flavored candy cane being traditional, and I could not easily locate a source to verify this assertion. I have no doubt that there IS a grape flavor, but I do not believe it to be part of tradition.

I also removed conflicting assertions that the candy cane was invented in France, Sweden, or Italy. They were sourced, however, the assertions themselves were very vague. In the case of Sweden and Italy, the sentence did not mention a date, a person, or any other details of how it came about. The source for this assertion was another Wikipedia article, written in Swedish. France had a line about priests in the 1400s, and it was backed up by a source from an online news article, but the article itself did not cite any sources and I could not find any other source for this assertion on Google.

I see nothing "dubious" about the spree candy cane in the picture, so I removed the dubious tag. That is definitely a spree - just do a google images search. Was there some other reason the image was objectionable?

Origins

Since there are conflicting ideas and there appear to be no solid sources (sorry I cannot speak Swedish) to support one over the other, I have removed them. The article simply states that candy sticks had become common across Europe before they started getting bent into canes. If you know of any reliable sources with information about the historical origins of the candy cane, please feel free to reinstate your claim, but with backup and details please!

I recast the past edits about false traditions as "modern reinterpretations" occuring under the "in popular culture" header. I find it to be the most neutral way I can think of to talk about something that, while nice sounding, is not true :). However, one might argue that this tradition should not be considered notable. It may well not be - I had not heard of it before! So while I felt it good to add that this tradition appears to be strictly modern and not historical, I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look at it - it might be better to delete the section altogether if it just seems like needless "trivia".

Please Help

Hopefully the article is at least a little more organized and not as vague-sounding. We need better sources and some more fat on these bones (err, under these headings) so please edit away! JorenCombs (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"The cane shape" sentence

(A common myth is it is a J for jesus, this is not true)
The above should be cited, should it not? --Epithanyseeker (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is cited, but elsewhere in the article. However, I concur with the implication that this sentence should probably be removed...it seems out of place and a bit redundant, especially as it has already been dealt with under the "Modern Reinterpretations" section, which is cited. Joren (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. I couldn't think of a way to work it in there that didn't interrupt the flow of the actual history being presented. If you have a better idea, go for it... Joren (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

the content of the play must include candy cane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.8.30.181 (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Contradicts itself.

This is mostly a request reword the part of the article

"Although it has been claimed that the shape and color of candy canes had religious origins, these claims have been debunked.[2] It is currently believed that the candy cane was invented in either Sweden[3] or Italy.[4]"

Earlier it states

"he candy cane was originally a straight, hard, and all-white candy stick invented by French priests in the early 1400s. The cane shape is traditionally credited to a choirmaster at Cologne Cathedral in Germany, who, legend has it, in 1670 bent straight sugar sticks into canes to represent a shepherd's staff"

In general most articles I read that credit the origins to religious meanings mention some of the following means from a candy cane. 3 Red Stripes for the Trinity 1 Large one for teh sacrifice of jesus White primary color to represent salvation and finally a shape for a shepards cane. At least the 3 stripes is completely false. As the article points out they were not colored until recently. So, I am not here to argue that the article is incorrect, but I think the two sentences should be more unified and closer together. Finally the source sited for snopes is about an obviously wrong article about the candy cane being invented in America, but even it mentions that they might of originated in a church and I do point out that the Shepard staff is a fairly religious symbol so while the color and decoration is trully not religious in origin it is a little odd for the article to say that the shape is "debunked" when it has a citation that states its shape could be by request of a religious leader. I think proven false for the color and highly doubted for the shape is a fairer statement and it might be a good place to move the point that the hook is likely designed to allow people to hang the candy when they decorate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.203.75 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, how can "snopes.com" a site documenting rumors be used as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slacr! Thank you for your contribution - in the future, you may sign your discussion posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ and that will put your name and the date on your posts. This way, people have a way of knowing who wrote what. Just so you know, most of the comments in this section were made several revisions ago, and the current article is very different from the one quoted here. You will notice that claims to the cane being invented by the Swedish or French are not present in the article anymore.

In response to your concern regarding snopes.com; please note that Snopes not only documents rumors, but also researches evidence to make a judgment about them either being true or false, and provides useful background information as well. In the article itself, there are six sources listed as reference for the article. This is why they are treated as a source here; they make a contention that while the "shepherd's crook" element may be true, the "J for Jesus" has no evidence to support it. I agree that Snopes may not be ideal, but you seem to be making the assumption that sites documenting rumors have the same credibility as the rumors themselves; this is not correct. Please note the distinction - We are not citing the rumor itself, but rather, a Snopes researcher's judgment of that rumor (and other historical information provided to help inform that judgment). If you have more authoritative sources handy, please contribute! This article (always) needs more refs. -- Joren (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Origins

This section needs to be changed; you shouldn't open with an unsourced urban legend in a section titled "Origins." If you really want to include a section on the candy cane's apocryphal Christian symbolism, create a separate section for it. 174.67.207.149 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced? Four citations are provided. DonIago (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and none of them are factual. Some of the citations actually point out that it's just a legend. I grew up in Cologne, Germany. My parents are tourist guides and have been doing guided tours through the Cathedral for years. They've written books on regional legends and folklore. The candy cane legend is completely unknown in Cologne and candy canes are not part of German Christmas traditions (note how there isn't even a German version of the article on Wikipedia). All German sources I can find for this story were originally written in English.

Also, it doesn't make any historical sense. TFA doesn't give any reliable historical reference for candy sticks pre-dating the 19th century. The year in the story is 1670 -- there had still been actual witch trials until 1655. Beet sugar was only discovered in 1747. Mass production of sugar didn't become feasible until the 18th century. Cane sugar would have been a luxury good at the time (imported from the colonies -- of which Germany barely had any worth mentioning), especially at the quantities necessary to make candy canes. Artificial food coloring wouldn't become popular until the industrialisation. None of it really makes any sense in the historical context. If the story were true, it would be far more well-known throughout Europe. Here's a hint: in 1709 an Italian immigrant created a perfume in Cologne that became so successful we still call certain perfumes "Eau de Cologne" (water of Cologne).

This section needs to be changed regardless of the references. It's true that the legend exists in American Christian folklore, but it's absurd to claim it as even remotely plausible, especially in the version that places it in 17th century Cologne. It's not the "origin" of candy canes and there's nothing factual or even plausible about the legend. It's an American Christian folk tale. If this qualifies as historically accurate on Wikipedia these days, Wikipedia has lost all credibility. 84.44.190.151 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Per snopes none of the "origin" stories have factual basis including one on this page

Per the snopes article at http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp , there are many origin stories of candy canes that have been retold as fact but cannot be verified or have been proven as non factual. Propose renaming "origin" section to "folklore" and adding additional stories. 166.176.186.241 (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Article doesn't mention the universal issue with candy canes becoming extremely sharp if they are sucked

Hi folks,

As everyone who's ever eaten a candy cane knows, a popular use & risk of these sweets is that they are quite sharp and hard, and develop an extremely sharp tip when sucked (sharp enough to impale your cheek or tongue if you fall over while eating one) and also frequently used by children to poke each other for fun (occasionally causing cuts). There have even been a small number of cases of real or plastic candy canes being used (without modification) as a weapon to cause serious injuries (see e.g. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/police-woman-stabs-texas-man-in-eye-with-candy-cane/2096343/). See also a discussion on reddit where there is universal agreement that candy canes are uniquely sharp and painful to consume once sucked, often causing stab wounds inside the mouth (here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DoesAnybodyElse/comments/13zz12/dae_like_to_suck_on_candy_canes_until_they_become/). I attempted to make the following edit but it was rejected. Does anyone agree that it is sensible and should be acceptable to the wiki community?

PROPOSED EDIT

If sucked, candy canes develop a sharp tip which can cause injuries within the mouth. A popular prank amongst children is to poke other children with the sharpened tip and in a small number of cases, real or plastic candy canes have even been used as a weapon (ref: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/police-woman-stabs-texas-man-in-eye-with-candy-cane/2096343/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:858C:8800:D9EA:48DA:62C4:BA95 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This not supported by your reference, your reference is about a woman stabbing a police officer with a plastic candy cane. We don't care about what is happening on Reddit, this is something not needed in the article in the same way we don't have warnings about running with scissors in the scissors article. We don't include every bad thing that can happen if you do something against design. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)