Talk:Girl Scout cookie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scouting Wiki Project Girl Scout cookie is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] 2007 Updates

Lieslglogan did a rather sloppy edit removing all references to ABC bakers. I guess they are no longer in business. It would be nice to mention something about this in the article, and in any case clean it up a bit. Flutefreek 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

-Wrong:ABC bakers is not out of business. They are still a licensee, and are making cookies for the 2007-2008 sales season. See: http://www.abcsmartcookies.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.182.165 (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retired Cookies

Just passing through. I'd like to see more info about cookies that are no longer made. I added one I remember from my scouting days (Challet Cremes) but I'm stuck finding any info about "Jullietes". They were made by Little Brownie between 1993 and 1996 according to their history page and may have been called "Golden Nut Clusters" for two years before that.

Also, Trefoils came in a yellow box for many years. I don't know if that's important enough to add but thought I'd bring it up. 70.162.116.189 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been driving me crazy, and I knew if anyone knew the answer, it'd be someone here, so here goes: When I was younger, probably mid-80s or so, my grandma would usually get at least one of each variety. There was one kind, similar to the Trefoils, but thinner and crispier. They had what seemed to be a crystallized sugar coating over the top, too. I can't think of what they were called, and I can't seem to find any information anywhere about them. I'm fairly certain I'm not just imagining them, so if anyone remembers them or can find anything out about them, I could die happy. It's driving me nuts no knowing what these are called, and the few lists of retired cookies that I find online don't seem to include them. At least, the names don't seem to sound right and none of the descriptions are anything like what I'm thinking of. 71.171.149.175 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trans fats and sources

From the page: 'As of 2005, Girl Scout cookies, like many other commercially baked cookies, contain trans fat—one gram per serving in the case of Thin Mints. Federal guidelines issued in early 2005 call for people to minimize their consumption of trans fat, which is now widely regarded as unhealthy for the heart. Concerned parents have urged the Girl Scouts to address this and other health concerns about the cookies, suggesting that the cookie program is at odds with the Girl Scouts' forthcoming "healthy living" initiative. The Girl Scout organization has replied that the cookies are a treat which "shouldn't be a big part of somebody's diet," and say that they are "encouraging" the companies that bake the cookies to find alternative oils.'

As of 2006, ingredient listings on several varieties show 0 grams trans fats. This article may need to be updated. Also, there are several quotes given such as "shouldn't be a big part of somebody's diet" but no source. Where did this quote come from? 24.155.88.186 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Cite added. I'm not sure which varieties do not have trans fats as of 2006, but the thin mints I'm eating right now still do. And they're delicious. :) Kafziel 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As of 2007, the first ingredient in a box of "Girl Scouts Samoas" (box#3854912) is sugar and the second is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (soybean, cottonseed, coconut, palm and/or palm kernel oils, TBHQ, and citric acid to preserve freshness). The nutritional facts label states that FAT accounts for 8 grams of the 31 gram serving. The nutritional label categorizes the FATs into the following: 5 grams saturated fat and 0 grams trans fat. Question: Where are the other 3 grams, and why isn't the partially hydrogenated oil being categorized as trans fats [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Presence_in_food]? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.11.183.91 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Andy Rooney

On March 26, 2006, Andy Rooney, of CBS' 60 Minutes reported that it only costs .85 cents to create one box of cookies. The girl scouts than proceed to charge customers $3.50; thus keeping the 2.65 for themselves.
Rooney also stated that Keebler creates the cookies, and Keebler is owned by Kelloggs.

I removed this. It might be absolutely true that Andy Rooney said these things, but I think in his old age he's getting a little batty and obviously bad research.

  1. we list the bakery companies in the article and the information on the bakeries is on just about any girl scout cookie site, Keebler isn't one.
  2. regional councils set the price, that price isn't universal. Here in Seattle, we charge $4 a box.
  3. "thus keeping $2.65 for themselves", well, DUH, it's a fund-raiser. they are sold outside grocery stores. if people were concerned about the price, they'd walk another 100 feet into the store and buy store cookies at half the cost for twice as many cookies.

So there are points here that can be worked into the article but using Andy Rooney's message isn't it.

  1. that people think the cookies are overpriced and girl scouts are profiteering
  2. how the profits from cookie sales are distributed to the troops, regional councils, and national GSUSA.

SchmuckyTheCat 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That was a pretty lame addition, and I actually felt embarrassed for Andy Rooney for not seeming to get that it's a fund raiser. The points you raise are interesting; the points he raised weren't points at all. Kafziel 13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Keebler acknowledges that they make Girl Scout cookies here: http://www.kelloggs.com/keebler/history.html

I believe that, at least, it should be mentioned that Kellogs does indeed own Little Brownie Bakers, one of the two girlscout cookie manufacturers. People should be as informed as possible about anything that may interest them. Rooney was wrong. The Girl Scouts do not get the whole of the profits. First big business gets paid then the troops (ref: http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2006-04-18/oneill-girlscoutcookies). How much is sent to the bakers, I don't know. But the point is simply that it should be stated that Little Brownie Bakers is a subsidiary of Kellogg's and ABC is a subsidiary of Interbake. Thank you. Atheoussplendor 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing Scheme

The Pricing Subsection is less detailed, and is slightly at odds with the same information in the Overview.

[edit] Parody names

Over the Hedge (film) included a parody of Girl Scouts selling cookies door-to-door. There were several satire names listed (Skinny Mints and Neener-Neeners, for example) in dialogue, and the extras show about as many more. I plan to add these in an "In Popular Culture" section or perhaps just in the Trivia section once I compile the list. Any objections? --BlueNight 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would really avoid a trivia section, good articles don't have them. So if you can make them a part of the prose, go for it but make sure they are cited. So I say go for the pop culture section. Darthgriz98 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
After adding a section in the trivia in Over The Hedge, I realize how easily buried good trivia can become; there's a perfectly good space at the end of the "varieties" section. Thanks for the tip. --BlueNight 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
After remembering the Addams Family scene, with the now infamous exchange, "Is it (the lemonade) made from real lemons?" "Are they (the cookies) made from real Girl Scouts?", I did a bit more hunting around Wikipedia, and came across Scouting in popular culture. I went ahead and added a section with excerpts edited to uniformity. I'm sure I missed a few, but I feel it adds to the notability of the article. --BlueNight 07:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That's all well and fine, I would just prefer to not have bullets and have smooth flowing prose if that's at all possible. Good job though. Darthgriz98 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thin Mint name

In the Thin Mints paragraph under Varieties of Cookies, it says that Thin Mints is the second name for these cookies... the original being Chocolate Mints. True or not, I don't know, but when you click the Meet the Cookies link on http://www.girlscoutcookies.org/, it says that Thin Mints have never changed their name.

According to this site, also an official Girl Scout, site, they were called Chocolate Mints in the 50s: http://www.girlscouts.org/program/gs_cookies/cookie_history/1950s.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.113.1 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture and References

" * Hey Arnold!: In the Chocolate Turtles episode, Gerald has planned on selling the Camp Fire Lasses' Chocolate Turtles (their analog of Girl Scout Cookies) for a profit, until Gerald's sister, Timberly, ate all forty boxes that they bought. [8]"

Reference leads to: www.hey-arnold.com.

Two concerns with this:

1) The reference site appears to be a fan site that is not officially sanctioned by the creators/owners of Hey Arnold!

Note the site's disclaimer:

"Hey Arnold! is produced by Snee-Oosh Inc. and Nickelodeon, which is owned by Viacom, and (despite the name) no support or endorsement of this site is expressed or implied by Viacom, Nickelodeon, or anyone involved with the production of the show"

2) This reference may need to be removed as it appears to be almost an exact match to Camp Fire USA's candy sale, of which, one of the products are " Almond Caramel Clusters", (the Chocolate Turtle reference). Additionally, when Camp Fire USA was originally formed in 1910, it was then known as Camp Fire Girls

Kilcare (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Kilcare

[edit] Questioning placement of Pricing and Trans Fat under Criticism

I'm not exactly clear on why the Pricing section is within the Criticism section: I can't identify anything critical in the Pricing section as it is currently written. The mere fact that it is placed within Criticism implies that the price is high; however, if this is the intent, we would need some citations and/or we would need to be shown, not told, of the high price by a comparison of the price of Girl Scout cookies to the price of cookies sold by other organizations for fundraising purposes. I see neither of these, and, unless something actually critical is added along these lines, I think Pricing can simply be made a first-level section heading, which would better convey its current role as simply a factual, NPOV section about pricing.

Along the same theme, I'm not really sure why the trans fat section is under Criticism, either: I don't see any cited criticism (uh, no, "concerned parents" doesn't cut it...) of the trans fat levels of GS cookies in the current copy. Therefore, again, I don't see any reason to not move the section to be a top-level section and lose all the POV that having it under Criticism brings. I feel the current placement smells of a thinly-veiled attempt (intentional or not) to inject POV about trans fats into an article about a product that contains/contained trans fats. SixSix (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of Samoas

I merged the articles together and created a redirect Jdchamp31 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And I deleted the section on Samoas; this level of detail is embarrassing. Wikipedia's goal isn't to capture all the information in the world (see WP:NOT). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Humor section removed

I've removed the Girl Scout Cookie humor section, because it has no real contribution to the rest of the article. Armiris (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Never Notice the Difference

After seeing the AP article in Snopes's strange news on girl scout cookies, I remembered that I'd wanted to look up why the Samoas were so awful this year (I did notice they were milk chocolate and the name had changed, I'd assumed they were ignoring the rule of "if it ain't broke, don't screw with it, now I know that the local chapter simply switched bakeries.) Normally I prefer the Samoas by far above all the other types, this time I even preferred the Tagalongs, which I normally don't eat. If they've done a poll or something that finds most people can't tell, I'd like to see it. I know it's a trivial complaint of the sort that annoyed me when I was on Wikipedia, but, well, I certainly noticed the difference. --71.192.116.13 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)