Talk:Poisoned candy myths

Rumors

I remember a kid finding a razor blade in his Snickers bar last year... it was on the news around here.

Around where? Who are you and where do you live and what news source reported the story?

--Faith Likewater 19:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I definitely remember being told over and over to check candy and not take anything open when I was a kid. I have never heard of anybody X-raying candy. Can we get a reference for this part of the article? Until we get a source, I am moving it here. "To this day, fire departments and hospitals still encourage parents to bring their Halloween candy to be x-rayed or scanned by metal detectors for inserted razors or needles." PhatJew 08:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a source. -- MisterHand 14:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The idiocy really is amazing, though...You would hope that professionals would be a little more careful with resources. PhatJew 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The moral of the story is: don't get sick on halloween—the X-ray machine is in use. Sorry folks, there's too much potentially mutilated candy ahead of you. Tomer^talk 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

>This collective fear also served as the impetus for the "safe" trick-or-treating offered by many local malls.

can someone please tell me what ist meant by <"safe" trick-or-treating>?

"Safe" trick-or-treating in this context is when towns or cities hold trick-or-treating so that it falls in the middle of the day, during daylight hours, sometimes moving it to a Saturday or Sunday to accommodate parent work schedules. Some shopping malls have also started hosting a similar "safe" trick-or-treating event where parents can bring their children to the mall and go storefront to storefront gathering candy. 207.14.29.3 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a source for needles in snickers bars. Minnesota 2000 http://brainerddispatch.com/stories/110300/new_1103000020.shtml He was charged, does this need more followup before it is added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Poisoned candy snare in 1930's Spain

This phenomenom is probably more international than the article portrays. In Spain in the 30's, during a demonstration a rumour spread that nuns were giving poisoned sweets to children and the demonstration turned into a mob sacking and burning a couple of churches. This happened in Malaga and is õften cited as an example of anti-clericalism during Spain's 2nd Republic, prior to the civil war. 88.11.56.36 20:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Snopes says "True"

I just wanted to add that I clicked the Snopes link you sited and it says the Status is True, not False. I wonder if they changed it recently due to new information?

Shaeryn 22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that must have been an error, because it clearly says "false" again now. SteveJ2006 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp Says "true" now. AWC 3117 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed.

Dear god, how STUPID can people get? Just check the damn candy before feeding it to kids and don't take them to strange neighborhoods! jeeez! SilentWind 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) If there are no reports of incidents, doesnt checking candy seem like a gigantic waste of time for 100 million people? Sounds like the media making people paranoid, which is to bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another instance in '09

There's a report of a family finding a razor blade in the loot bag this year in Toronto, though the article doesn't mention any particular item. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/toronto-family-finds-razor-blade-in-halloween-loot/article1347150/ 70.48.64.29 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced suggestion by 216.81.50.149

216.81.50.149 added this to the article and not to the discussion:

don't know anything about editing the wiki but http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/03/bc-delta-candy-razor-blade.html you guys probably want to work this in

138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Joel Best says that "police dismissed reports" of this event, in the 2011 revision of his article Halloween Sadism: The Evidence. --Avirr (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Myth

Ok. How is this a myth? Examples of actual are given in the text yet still claiming it's false. That doesn't make sense. Either there have been cases or no cases. Correctron (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, you can't call it a myth unless it's been proven that it is impossible to tamper with candy, which we all know it is possible. Labeling it a "myth" is rather ignorant. Just my opinion though. 99.109.137.86 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't get this page. Correctron (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well... it's a bit more complicated than that. First of all, there have been no substantiated cases of stranger poisonings, which is what the "story" is about. The story isn't "your parents faked poisoned candy when you died after discovering a stash of illegal drugs in the house".

Secondly, myth doesn't mean "untrue story"; it means something more like 'a story that tells us something about what it means to be human'—such as, in this instance, worrying that innocent children might be harmed, that trusting in the kindness and generosity of strangers might not be safe, and that food whose provenance is unknown might not be safe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The real problem is that the article states one conclusion then argues another. If the myth is that No one has been injured or killed from tampered candy, that is one thing. But then uses that to try and state that candy tempering does not happen, which is a refuted and entirely independent issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.244.56 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Noting significant problems remaining, even after significant work

Significant portions of the article are unsourced, including in the lead and in introductory portions of sections, which, together make broad, far-reaching statements. This is not encyclopedic writing.

In terms of sectioning, and section content, the same applies. Before today's edit, the section headings read like popular book chapters, and hence, contributed to a sense of polemic rather than encyclopedic writing. In terms of content, the sections do not adequately parse the material (e.g., history is not all in History, and all History is not historical).

At the same time, apart from primary sources that could be thrown in for interest (but not relied upon, as they are, as sole sources, see below) — there are two sources for this article: Joel Best (7 citns, scholarly or semi-scholarly), and the popular Kawash book (7 citns). An expert needs to check if the former, Best, is the exclusive or near exclusive basis for latter (Kawash), and if so, this article becomes effectively single-sourced vis-a-vis scholarship.

Here, I would like to know what scholars have cited Best in his scholarly literature, and what those other workers in this area have said, and then what others still, reviewing all the work, have said. Otherwise, our approach here at WP is no more encyclopedic than the media about whom we are complaining, for propagating a story without verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.131.212 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hence I have called for an expert either in American sociology or cultural history, to create a more orderly, cohesive, up-to-date scholarly text.

Finally, two substantive issues regarding the non-encyclopic nature of the article:

• first, and repeatedly in the article, statements are made interpreting the import and consequences of primary news sources, but only the primary source, and not any scholarly, independent source appears as citation. This is on the part of the writer/editor at WP, and has to be remediated.
• second, in the media section, broad introductory claims are made without sourcing. In this case, the statement of the ultimate provable false-nature of claims of harm (poisoning, etc.) implies that a full investigation was done, and its results reported such that scholars (and WP editors) could cite the final conclusion; however, the same broad, unsourced introduction claims the general rarity of follow-up reporting (and so casts doubt over our ability to know the opening claim—that essentially all such claims are false). This contradiction is not solvable without provided sources. The original source probably understood and captured the nuance of the issues (we hope); we certainly have not (yet).

Solving the primary source reliance and resolving these tensions require (a) sourcing, so sources can be reviewed — the apparent contradictions and other tensions require sources to visit/re-visit — and (b) the whole of the article needs to take seriously that it is the job of others to have and express opinions, and it is our job to report the published views of these others. Le Prof 50.240.131.212 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your request for an expert is interesting, and I suggest to you that Kawash is the very expert that you want to consult. You could begin that process by reading the cited sections of her book on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I read the cited section of her book, and looked back to it for sources other than Best. And I looked at it again more thoroughly, in response to your objection, and reversion that followed. As I suggested above, based on the fact it was a Faber publication, and not a scholarly publication, the Kawash book is a popular and not scholarly work. And while Samira Kawash is a scholar of American's love of candy, she is not a scholar who has independently looked at the issue presented in this article. Rather, her book — while a valuable, and largely mis-utilized source for this article — does not amount to an independent view. It is based on Best, citing him repeatedly. See p. 369, where the old Best and Horiuchi is cited repeatedly as a source, alongside a Best interview, along with a (very) few news reports, and absolutely no other primary research literature. (snopes is not scholarly literature.) Bottom line, Kawash is a useful popular reference, but does not address the matter raised, rather, close look at it reinforces it: as I suggested, Kawash is derivative of Best. Discuss/refute before changing anything further. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had to remove most of your changes, but have preserved the (IMO) best ones. I particularly wanted to call out the inappropriateness and un-encyclopedic nature of collecting a list of current events. Wikipedia is definitely WP:NOT the place to make a list of case studies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue regarding this being a compilation addressed, and your edit regarding the word "Critically" was accepted. But your wholesale removal of the added, clearly sourced, and well written content is your personal perspective, and not the way that WP works. An article is never finished, and belongs to no one editor.

Moreover, in your reversion and your comments, you have not dealt with the real issues — (i) that the article is nearly all based on one scholar's work (on which the media appear to have just as thoroughly gone to town as it did in the opposite direction, earlier) apart from a little WP:OR thrown in, and (ii) that philosophically, as Best himself has noted, one cannot prove a negative, and that — as in the original, real, and under-described Pfiel case — such cases are both possible, and practically inevitable. Hence, we need to be honest with the truth: 99.9% false is not 100% false. This is an encyclopedia, and not a place for polemic. (And I have left it 99.9% false, and even buttressed the material drawn from Best.) But, firmly, and clearly, it is dated work, and to promote one scholar, and not look back to the matter, is not encyclopedic writing. If you wish to discuss changes, feel free. Removing the call for an expert when neiterh of us are, and wholesale reverting, no. But as a scholar, this article was a mess. Pretending it is not will not move it to improvement. My call for experts might. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Note also that WP policy and guidelines (i) do not allow 50 page spans for citations, asking instead for 1-2 pp., and (ii) frown on repeated appearances of the same reference, giving two options (Biblio section with full citation, plus short ref form appearing Reference section, or one full appearance in the References, and use of the markup). I chose the latter — which is a WP-approved way to solve the earlier problem. This should not be removed without creating a comparable or better solution. No review will uphold this. Otherwise, if you do not like the tags, start sourcing the unsourced statements. The opening to the Media section was entirely without sourced basis, and was therefore OR and leaning POV/polemic. Address the problem, and not the fact that I make a mess look the mess that it actually is. 50.232.187.66 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

LeProf, your tagging is not helpful. The tags are just going to languish there indefinitely unless someone completely rewrites the article. You've left a ton of articles like Dora Maar and Dog days in a barely readable state. Please pick one article and fix it up yourself instead of flooding it with tags and then moving onto the next. KateWishing (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is not "based on one scholar's work"; two scholars are already cited, and—more to the point—there are zero scholars that actually disagree with what these two have written. I'm in favor of WP:YESPOV, but I'm not in favor of pretending that minority POVs exist in the absence of any evidence that any sources actually do so. (The fact that Kawash analyzes Best's work means that she's an independent secondary source that demonstrates the importance of Best's work, by the way.)

It's strange that you claim that WP:CITE gives only two options for page numbers; the guideline says "When an article cites many different pages from the same source, to avoid the redundancy of many big, nearly identical full citations, most Wikipedia editors use one of three options". If we interpret this statement about what's popular ("most Wikipedia editors use") as "frown[ing] on" doing anything else, then that still leaves the problem that three is bigger than two, and that this statement applies to citing "many different pages from the same source". I believe it is generally held that "three" is not exactly "many", even in myths about African counting systems that only include the numbers "one, two, three, many".

With respect to another of your strange claims about citation formats, namely that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not allow 50 page spans for citations (or 45-page spans, in this case), then I invite you to provide evidence of that assertion. I believe that you will find the most relevant section of the guideline at Wikipedia:Page numbers.

I'm tolerably familiar with WP:CITE's contents, since I am the fifth most prolific contributor to that guideline since its creation. Perhaps you have not read it for a while? At any rate, I can assure you that your unilateral decision to change the citation style to "a WP-approved way" without discussion is not only not required, but is a clear violation of the WP:CITEVAR section of WP:CITE. Feel free to drop by WT:CITE to ask if you'd like a second opinion about that, or just have a look at the archives for the last several years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to agree with the cited scholars: Best has drawn together 90 cases of alleged poisoning based news and hospitals from 1958 onward.[3] In none of the cases does he attribute the events to "random attempts to harm children" at the Halloween holiday, noting instead that most cases are attempts by adults to gain compensation or by children to seek attention.

90 cases of poisoning? Not according to his website: "most of the reported incidents involved the discovery of a contaminated treat, but no injury." He doesn't say anything about who was responsible in those cases, only cases with fatalities and injuries were investigated. He also writes: "While it is impossible to devise a complete list of reported incidents, it should be evident that these reports are not very common, and that the incidents are not very serious." This doesn't disprove the myth as it is described in the lead (malevolent individuals could hide poison or drugs, or sharp objects such as razor blades, needles, or broken glass in candy), it only disproves that children are injured or killed. Ssscienccce (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Best doesn't explicitly make the point on that webpage (though he does call "Halloween sadism" an "urban legend"), but he does in the source we actually cite and elsewhere. The Social Problems paper is more detailed: "A child who 'discovers' an adulterated treat stands to be rewarded with the concerned attention of parents and, perhaps, police officers and reporters.[...] The 76 reported incidents included two cases that were identified as hoaxes at the time, and it seems likely that other cases involved undiscovered fraud. After all, it is remarkable that three-quarters of the children who reported receiving contaminated treats had no injuries. Efforts to systematically follow up reports of Halloween sadism have concluded that the vast majority were fabrications." KateWishing (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it to "alleged poisoning attempts"; is that clearer? Ssscienccce has reminded me that some people believe that it's not actually a poisoning unless someone is dead at the end. In that definition, "90 alleged poisonings" involves 90 corpses, and the only allegation is whether they were poisoned (vs died of something else). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

English is not my first language, so I don't know if putting razor blades in candy is called poisoning (or if "cases of alleged poisoning based news and hospitals" is correct syntax), but I'll take your word for it, no problem. Ssscienccce (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Pleasantville, NJ 1967 & '68 - Razors in Apples TRUTH

Razors in apples actually happened in 1967 and 1968 Halloween in Pleasantville, New Jersey. This was reported in a story in the New York Times of November 5, 1968, from UPI. There were thirteen found and several kids were injured. It led to a law being enacted in New Jersey. The idea that this was missed by this Joel Best is suspicious. This article has many problems, first of all being that candy tampering - razors in apples is NOT a myth, it may not be a common occurrence, but it clearly has happened. We can assume that this story, being from United Press International, may have been picked up by many papers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evananda (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 November 2015‎

Or maybe we can assume that this story, being published a few days after Halloween, does not contain the results of the subsequent investigation. It might be that razors in apples were found; that fact alone doesn't mean that the razors were put there by strangers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested move

I suggest moving the article to Tainted Halloween candy, for the following reasons:

• The term "myth" in the title is misleading, as there are three cases in which tainted candy was actually distributed:
  • in 1959 in California
  • in 1974 in Texas
  • in 2015 in Ohio
• The term "poison" in the title is misleading, as the subject covers razor blades, needles, and glass.
• All cases refer to Halloween candy

I look forward to any opinions on this matter. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. The title currently does not reflect the content. Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Title changed. The discussion has been open for two weeks with one supporting opinion. The lead section has been modified in accordance with the new title, as well as to more accurately reflect article content. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this move, because:

• The only reason that "title currently does not reflect the content" is because the person proposing the move changed the contents first, so that they no longer reflect the conclusions of scholarly sources. The scholarly sources and references books actually use the words "poisoned candy myth", e.g., here.
• These alleged "three cases" aren't proven to be strangers poisoning children with candy. In 1959, he distributed laxative drugs, and over-the-counter drugs are not considered "candy" by most accounts (nor poison, generally, although some children did suffer temporarily from the normal effect of eating laxatives); in 1974, there was no "distribution", as the poisoned candy was given to the kid by his own father; and in 2015, we have exactly the story that the scholarly literature refer to over and over again: a WP:PRIMARY news story saying that something was reported – not proven, but reported – and zero follow up.

I also encourage you to read about what a myth is. Myth is not a derogatory word that means something like "pack of lies" or "pure fiction with no basis in reality". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if you really can't stand the title, then you might consider something like poisoned candy urban legend instead. That still gives a clear indication that the subject of the page is "the stories people tell", rather than "individual alleged incidents". One of the main scholars in the area somewhat prefers "Halloween sadism", which is less clear about the "story" aspect, but it also has another problem: That title unfortunately also seems to be used for a very different kind of plotline (e.g., kidnapping or rape by deception facilitated by costume-wearing traditions). So I think that option, although supportable with sources, should be avoided on the grounds that it's confusing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The Move was already done. You are not opposing an active move, you should initiate a new discussion. Furthermore, if this is about the move, you should have left it open for discussion. In all fairness, nd out of respect for policies, you should revert your move, and initiate a discussion. - Boneyard90 (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think it makes sense to initiate a separate discussion, when there's already a discussion happening right here. I'd be happy to read any sources that you want to provide that could guide us to an appropriate name for an article about these urban legends. Just {{ping}} me if you find any. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

2017

I find the ongoing existence of this Wikipedia page puzzling. I see news reports from mainstream reputable news organizations every year reporting incidents of Halloween candy tampering. Are we to assume, with no evidence, that not one of these reports is true?

A quick sampling from 2017 alone:

- Multiple incidents in Southern Ontario in 2017, including one girl hospitalized: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/03/ontario-girl-11-hospitalized-after-eating-halloween-candy-that-contained-metal-object.html

- Two incidents in Nova Scotia, Canada: http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/n-s-rcmp-investigate-after-needle-found-in-halloween-candy-1.3663652

- An incident from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada https://globalnews.ca/news/3840290/winnipeg-mom-finds-xanax-pills-in-kids-halloween-candy-bag/

- An incident from Denver, Colorado: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/11/04/dish-detergent-pods-halloween-candy/

- An incident from Omaha, Nebraska: http://nypost.com/2017/11/02/boy-bites-into-halloween-candy-finds-needle/

Perhaps at some point these types of incidents were mythical or overblown, but it's not obvious that's the case anymore. While still rare, the possibility of tampered Halloween candy does seem to be a reality and not a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.224.64 (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In 2000, James Joseph Smith of Minneapolis placed sharp needles within Snicker's bars that he distributed to children on All Hallow's Eve. While several children bit into the bars, only one was injured.

In 2015, a razor blade was discovered in a Snicker's bar after children went trick-or-treating in Reynoldsburg, Ohio.

Prior to Halloween in 2017, North Carolina's Alcohol Law Enforcement (ALE) agency issued a warning about cannabidiol candy.

During Allhallowtide 2017, the Toronto Star reported that an eleven-year-old girl had to undergo surgery to remove a metal piece that she had swallowed from eating a contaminated Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup. Local police also reported the discoverance of needles in Halloween candy from Windsor, and Catham.

In the same year, police believed that heroin found in a young girl's Halloween candy originated in the Hidden Valley area.

Here's some content that was added, but these are mostly weak sources, so I'm removing them.

To the IP editor: Yes, you're right: There are newspaper stories about this every year. That kind of news articles sells, right? So of course they're going to post those. But the fact is that most of these are hoaxes, and even among the ones that are "real", almost none of them involve strangers. A long list of every possible mention tends to obscure the real facts, which are:

1. Almost nobody actually gets injured.
2. Almost all of the verifiable incidents involve a sharp object (not poison) and are perpetrated by a family member or friend, who only meant a practical joke or a prank.
3. Even including injury-free pranks by friends, these almost never happen. We're talking about one or two reported incidents per year. To put that in perspective, for every child who finds that a reckless friend or sibling has stuck a pin in a piece of candy "just as a joke", five children die from lightning.

So the problem for the article is that we could list a whole lot of these, but the reader would get an unbalanced view of the subject by doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Related to REAL Tampering Cases

There were, also in the 1970's, a slew of real tampering cases with Tylenol (and aspirin?) on the store shelves, with criminal intent to poison, extort, or cover up the real target of the murder(s). I remember when the packaging was changed, nation-wide, as a result of these cases. This is when we learned the phrase "tamper-proof."Starhistory22 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Chicago Tylenol murders is linked in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

2 Delta, B.C. residents charged after cannabis edibles found in Halloween candy last year

"Two Delta, B.C., residents have been charged with violations of the Cannabis Act after a local parent found edibles in their child’s Halloween candy last year.

The investigation led Delta police to a suspected illegal cannabis extraction lab in November 2020, where thousands of edibles, associated packaging, labelling materials and equipment were seized."

Is this link a good one for the article? https://rock101.com/news/8332895/delta-bc-residents-charged-edibles-halloween-candy/ 24.68.79.20 (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really. Does it involve a malevolent stranger who is trying to kill children? If not, then it doesn't belong on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wigan UK true case

This has actually happened, granted not all claims are true but it does happen. To say this is a myth is dangerous. Gridlerbing (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gridlerbing, please see the FAQ at the top of this page. If you can cite multiple, independent sources about a stranger being convicted of poisoning a child through Halloween activities, or even of trying to harm one or more children, please share them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"No cases have been found" and similar unbounded, declarative statements

I removed the statement that "No cases of strangers killing or permanently injuring children this way have been proven." (as of when? by whom? the editor?) which cited an online magazine that said "Trust me: No one has ever poisoned a stranger's kid with Halloween candy."

Come on folks, we should be pointing to authoritative sources, and then putting that claim in context. "As of 2023, the FBI states that ... " [citation]

Also, for these types of positions a good starting place is Argument from ignorance  • Bobsd •  (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved as Reverted :As Emily Litella would say... Never-mind. After chatting with WhatamIdoing, I concur with having the statement in the lede. I had not realized that the citation was from a reputable source.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Off topic

Ethoori, I have removed this text:

In August 2024, in Auckland, methamphetamine-laced Rinda pineapple-flavoured candies were donated to Auckland City Mission. Each laced candy contained over 300 doses of methamphetamine. It is believed that over 400 families may have received the tampered candy, and 3 people were hospitalized.

because I think it's off topic. This isn't a case of someone deciding to "distribute with the intent of harming random children"; this appears to be a case of someone donating what they believed was a bag of ordinary candy, except that it turns out to have been a small fortune's worth of drugs that a smuggling operation had disguised to look like candy.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a bag of candy, the candies were wrapped individually, which is why I believe it was intentional. Ethoori (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ethoori, the BBC article says "The sweets were donated anonymously by a member of the public in a sealed retail package". It also says that the police believe that "the incident could be accidental" but that it was too early to tell, and the NZ Drug Foundation said it "was unlikely to be intentional".

It's not really enough for a Wikipedia editor to personally believe something; we need sources that indicate intentionality, and I'm seeing the opposite of that here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)