![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Pricing Subsection is less detailed, and is slightly at odds with the same information in the Overview.
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)
" * 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
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)
I merged the articles together and created a redirect Jdchamp31 ( talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
I work on digital media for one of the manufacturers of Girl Scout cookies. I just wanted to alert everyone to the news release on the Girl Scouts of America Web site which states:
“Girl Scout Cookies Not Affected By Peanut Butter Warning”
http://www.girlscouts.org/news/news_releases/2009/girl_scout_cookies.asp
Please help us share this good news with friends and family so that they can continue to enjoy Girl Scout Do-Si-Dos® (Peanut Butter Sandwich) and Tagalongs® (Peanut Butter Patties®). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.26.78 ( talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about the reduction in the number of Thin Mints, Do-si-dos, and Tagalongs per box to the Selling Process section. Pikachu sensei ( talk) 05:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The trivia section is too long; I've deleted some entries and reduced the length of others.-- Parkwells ( talk) 12:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
WHY IS THERE NO BORDER AROUND THE PICTURE ON THE PAGE?! It displeases me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.68.229 ( talk) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Anybody know anything about a company called Burry's that used to bake Girl Scout cookies? I ran across some discussion about how the quality declined after Burry's quit baking them. I don't recall any baker other than ABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.74.72 ( talk) 12:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the controversy that arose regarding the Tagalongs box in the late 90's? Was that box ever changed? There was erious discussion that its advertising text had a lesbian slant to it....I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP! I remember reading about it in Manhattan's Village Voice, and other publications at the time, but this is all I could find online SEE: http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=10785 I kept a Tagalongs box of cookies for years, knowing I could get a good price for it as a collectable some day...then I ate the cookies in a feeding frenzy one night. (signed, CodeNameMary)
EDIT: Oh, I see the box was discussed in this discussion thread at "The Straight Dope". Not a citable source, but has some background : SEE: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-62508.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Girl scout cookie's are gross! Boysrsocute 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
A disproportionate amount of space is given to Samosas, despite their status, as noted in the article, as the number two cookie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.78.161 ( talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Was there a previous section describing the differences between Samoas and Caramel DeLites? If so, why was it removed? W00tfest99 ( talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
A manufacturer requesting return of its product from consumers is a product recall. Voluntary withdrawal is a PR term and is not (usually) used by reliable secondary sources (compare voluntary withdrawal and product withdrawal with recall). Ponydepression ( talk) 08:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI - the Do-Si-Dos/peanut butter sandwich cookies were known as Savannahs in some parts of the country in the '80s - perhaps they still are. This warrants an inclusion, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.163.8 ( talk) 18:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
I sold my fair share of these and I loved them! They were called Scot-Teas (not sure of spelling). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.174.130 ( talk) 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
So there are points here that can be worked into the article but using Andy Rooney's message isn't it.
SchmuckyTheCat 03:27, 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)
But store cookies mostly taste like crap. They're dry and flaky and tasteless unless they have icing. I sort of think Andy was implying that it was ironic how little girls were selling such inexpensive things at such extortionate prices. And from an economic standpoint it would be better to sell cookies for less since you would then sell more boxes (that part is a blatant attempt on my behalf to get boxes to cost less) Spencer R. Phillips ( talk) 05:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the move to American Girl Scout Cookies. There was no discussion and there is no organization named American Girl Scout.
I suspect the move came about because of the globalize tag. Are there other Girl Scout organizations that formally sell cookies?
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of cookies with dual names (such as somoas/caramel delites)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.114.34 ( talk) 22:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"Licensed baking companies can offer up to 28 varieties of Girl Scout cookies. The same types of cookies are sold under different names by the different bakeries." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any other organization that sells GIRL SCOUTcookies? If so, then we should move this article to Girl Scout cookies (Girls Scouts of the USA). Otherwise, I don't see the need for the globalize tag. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The last time I checked, Girl Scout cookies were priced at $3.50 a box. Has something changed that I don't know of, or is this the price of cookies in every council except my own? Forestpaw13 ( talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to vary, depending on the Girl Scouts organization selling them. I just removed this small paragraph:
The linked page, http://www.girlscoutsnorcal.org/pages/product_sales/cookie_sale.html doesn't say anything about a national pricing policy, just what the price is from Girl Scouts of Northern California. And the price there is $4.00, whereas, my daughter's scout troop, in Philadelphia, are selling them for $3.50. TypoBoy ( talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The trans fat is not listed because of rounding. If less than .5 grams is present per serving, it is listed as 0 grams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.159.149 ( talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
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 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).
The description of the Girl Scouts' statement on this was misleading and not in accordance with the press release cited, and so I have changed it to a more accurate version. The old version strongly implied that the Girl Scouts were saying that their cookies did not actually contain trans fats. What the press release actually says is that "all varieties will contain less than 0.5 grams trans fat per serving, which meets or exceeds the FDA guidelines for the 'zero trans fat' designation" (from the same press release cited in the article). This is not the same thing, and so I have updated the article accordingly. 76.123.9.139 ( talk) 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
A criticism I'd like to see some research on is the idea that Girl Scouts as given itself over to being an organization whose primary purpose is to sell cookies -- this is an idea I've heard before, and turned to Wikipedia to try to find some research on it. Perhaps some enterprising soul would like to do some leg work on it to perhaps represent a smaller viewpoint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.110.17 ( talk) 05:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's worth digging into a little history of the previous names of some of the Girl Scout cookies. Like the person who mentioned the Savannahas above, there were also Trefoils (shortbread) and Hoedowns, which were the chocolate covered peanut butter cookies. This was around the time of Yangles. Before Samoas, they were called Jubilees and they were more of a bar-shaped cookie, about 2 inches in height, 1 inch in width. If I think of more, I will add them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.219.11 ( talk) 03:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Girl Scout cookies, plural? All the major references refer to "cookies," including the official GSUSA webpage, where it even shows that name is a registered trademark ("Girl Scout Cookies®"). Besides, just on a logical level, we're not talking about one cookie, it's about many different varieties which make up the program as a whole.
Am I missing something, or shall we go ahead and move the page? Kane5187 ( talk) 00:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Girl Scout Cookies Mike Cline ( talk) 16:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Girl Scout cookie →
Girl Scout cookies – The subject of the article is a group of branded cookies which consists of numerous varieties. The plural usage is universal among the references cited, including the Girl Scouts website, which indicates that the plural form is the official name as well as a registered trademark ("
Girl Scout Cookies®"). I realize that per
WP:PLURAL singular article titles are generally preferred, but I submit that this qualifies as "Articles on groups or classes of specific things". Consensus was not established on the article's Talk page, so I'm listing it here to solicit further input.
Kane5187 (
talk) 04:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The article previously stated "During World War II the Girl Scouts sold calendars rather than cookies, due to shortages of flour, sugar, and butter. [2]" I have added references from newspapers of 1942 through 1945 which document that GS cookie sales continued throughout the war years, though with deliveries cut somewhat. In 1943 some councils limited customers to 2 boxes. The girlscouts.org reference was misleading, and said that they started selling calendars during the war (true) but someone inferred that they stopped selling cookies (manifestly untrue). Edison ( talk) 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Citation 2 has reported false information on Cookie Rewards. I don't know how to find the proper source, but I personally earned my first trip to camp using "Cookie Dough" in 1988. I began selling cookies in 1986, and I have a badge for each year of sales. I earned a US Savings Bond as the3rd highest seller in my council in 1997. I think that "Age Appropriate" may have been misunderstood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C487:8B20:A1BC:56C4:7859:2B36 ( talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Should this article mention that a popular strain of Marijuana is named after Girl Scout Cookies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.188.243 ( talk) 04:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Who determines and or charges shipping for GS Cookies? Online orders start at $11.35 per box for any civilian address on the continental US. Any military base whether on continental US soil, Alaska/Hawaii and any overseas US Base shipping starts at $20.00 per box.
GSUSA will not divulge who their shipper is and constantly skirts the question saying that the shipping fees are on par with any shipping agency.
After all is said and done Girl Scouts get to keep only .60 cents per box...who gets to keep all of that money charged for shipping and handling plus all of the other fees attached (esp via the Digital ordering from the website)
Someone is pocketing money and even the Girl Scouts don't get a cut. What about the military? Why do they get OVER-charged?
Instead of deleting this section...let's please answer the question(s)....Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.159.34 ( talk) 22:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Girl Scout Cookies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://http{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dchieftain.com/news/78448-03-09-08.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=287169When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
nn content fork-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Since the beginning of 2019, it looks like Trios have been discontinued after the release of Caramel Chocolate Chip. As such, I think it makes sense to remove it from the table in the Varieties section and down into the Discontinued section, to read like this:
* Trios: Gluten-free peanut butter oatmeal cookies with chocolate chips. [3]
Would someone without a COI mind making the update? Kintetsubuffalo or DocWatson42, could either of you take a look?-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I've been in touch with Girl Scouts of the USA about making some general improvements to this article. It seems that the overall content of the article is OK, but it's in need of some reorganization for clarity and better referencing.
To start, I reviewed the references only to find primary and poor secondary sources. Once this is complete, I'll present a sandbox with the new suggested references to support the current content. I'll post back here with a sandbox once it's ready, but if anyone has any suggestions or concerns, I'm happy to collaborate on changes to this article.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool. BTW, when I was talking about the lead going from a B- to a C+, I really wasn't commenting on any removals from the lead. Just that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Typically the referencing is in the article rather than the lead. Wouldn't it be better to keep the conversation here so that it's in the article's history? North8000 ( talk) 22:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm planning to swap in FacultiesIntact's version of the article. Then we can edit/evolve it from there. Does anybody have any objections? North8000 ( talk) 19:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
For multiple reasons I've been off the grid for 7 days. Now I'm only 1/2 back. :-) FacultiesIntact, is there a correspondence between old and new sections so that the swap could be done section by section? if not.... I'd be willing to sub the whole new draft in, but I don't think I'm up for a lot of long term slower work. Chrisvls, even if not ideal, would you be OK with that and then it could be edited from there? So, not everythign in the new draft is considered to be accepted, it's just a step towards that. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything in there about administrative cost controversies. I don't even know what those would be. Running the local office is one of the things that they do and one of the things that fundraising supports. Of course you could call that an "administrative cost". North8000 ( talk) 15:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
When I said "I don't see", I didn't mean that I thought it should be in the article. What I meant was there is talk as if it were in there but it isn't. I actually think it shouldn't be in there. North8000 ( talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(Sub-heading added by north8000 after the post)
In the interest of collaboration and demonstrating that I'm acting in good faith, I'd like to propose some changes to the History section. A few things didn't seem to follow NPOV or have an encyclopedic tone, so I grouped some of the paragraphs together to help create a more cohesive narrative and avoid it reading too much like a timeline. @ Chrisvls and North8000:, below is a detailed list of my proposed edits to the History section:
I'd also like to propose joining paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 together, 4 and 5 together, and 6, 7, and 8 together to actually turn these separate thoughts into cohesive groups. I'd also recommend moving the statement in paragraph 6 "In 1998, cookie sale awards were instituted." to the Sales section, as it's more relevant to that section than it is the greater history of the cookies themselves. Lastly, I found an archive link for the DeVan article here:
[2]--
FacultiesIntact (
talk) 01:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Thanks @ North8000 and Chrisvls: for taking a look at everything. I understand the thought behind moving the transfat and palm oil content, but I worry that the sections would be too devoid of content otherwise. I'm working on rewriting the HFCS statement per Chris's suggestion (as well as some other things), but I have some other changes I'd like to propose in the meantime, this time in the Varieties subsection. I removed a large amount of unsourced content and worked to better integrate the Thin Mints content that had been merged in from when it was its own article for cohesion.
So, instead of this:
Original text
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies, with Samoas/Caramel deLites the second most popular. About 50 million boxes of Thin Mints were sold in 2013 compared with 38 million boxes of Samoas. Thin Mints averages about 38 cookies per box and Samoas 15 cookies per box.
Girl Scout cookie varieties include: Thin Mints
Thin Mints are a type of cookie sold by the Girl Scouts of the USA. Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies, the second in popularity being Samoas. [1] About 50 million boxes of Thin Mints were sold in 2013 compared with 38 million boxes of Samoas. Thin Mints average about 32 cookies per box and Samoas 15 cookies per box. [1] Operation Thin Mint is a program by the Girl Scouts of the USA, led by Girls Scouts from the San Diego-Imperial Council, to provide military members with donated cookies. [2] The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East. [3] Since the program began in 2002, [4] the Girl Scouts have shipped over 3 million boxes of cookies. [5] Keebler manufactures a similar cookie known as a Grasshopper, which is produced in the same factory as Little Brownie Bakers's Thin Mints. [6] |
it would look like this:
Proposed
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies, with Samoas/Caramel deLites the second most popular. About 50 million boxes of Thin Mints were sold in 2013 compared with 38 million boxes of Samoas. Thin Mints averages about 38 cookies per box and Samoas 15 cookies per box.
Girl Scout cookie varieties include:
Operation Thin Mint is a program by the Girl Scouts of the USA, led by Girls Scouts from the San Diego-Imperial Council, to provide military members with donated cookies. [2] The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East. [3] Since the program began in 2002, [7] the Girl Scouts have shipped over 3 million boxes of cookies. [8] Keebler manufactures a similar cookie known as a Grasshopper, which is produced in the same factory as Little Brownie Bakers's Thin Mints. [6] |
(I removed the table in the section for markup reasons here, I don't actually intend to suggest removing it.)-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 02:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
References
BI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fox5SD
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).USN
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
References
Additionally, some of the old Thin Mint content is overly specific to the cookie type. Operation Thin Mint is alluded to in other sections, and Keebler’s Grasshopper isn’t relevant enough to Girl Scout Cookies as a whole to be included. The lines “Operation Thin Mint is a program by the Girl Scouts of the USA, led by Girls Scouts from the San Diego-Imperial Council, to provide military members with donated cookies.[44] The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East.[45] Since the program began in 2002,[46] the Girl Scouts have shipped over 3 million boxes of cookies. Keebler manufactures a similar cookie known as a Grasshopper, which is produced in the same factory as Little Brownie Bakers's Thin Mints” should be removed.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again to both Chrisvls for your efforts in reviewing my proposals. I'd like to propose a few more things that I've identified as needing improvement. In regards to the lead section, I thought the opening could be restructured to ensure that the content was actually supported. I also think the information about prizes should be removed, as it doesn't seem to be essential information to convey in the opening of the article and is adequately covered in the Sales section:
In the Sales section, I felt that a lot of the information was actually unsupported by the references provided or was otherwise redundant. I think the line about cookie prices in Massachusetts should be removed as it gives arbitrary price points, rather than conveys that each council sets the price for the region. I also think the Profits section should be retitled as Proceeds to reflect the fundraising nature of the program, and added to the Sales section as a subheader rather than stand as its own section. Combining the two helps group the relevant information together.
Girl Scouts sell cookies to relatives, friends, neighbors, and others in their town or city. In recent years, because of safety concerns, an increased emphasis has been placed on cookie booths, where girls sell from tables in public areas under the supervision of adult troop leaders, rather than door-to-door. Many councils offer the option for customers to sponsor boxes of cookies to be sent to U.S. servicemen and women. [9] Cookies are also available online. [10]
Also in the Sales section I think the line “Also, award badges exist for sales: Cookie Count, Smart Cookie, The Cookie Connection, Cookie Biz, and Cookies & Dough” should be removed as it’s no longer current, per https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our-program/badges/badge_explorer.html. The lines “Traditionally each regional Girl Scout council set the prices for cookies sold in that council. A 2006 article in The Boston Globe noted that price "is hardly ever a factor, until buyers find out that the same box of cookies is selling for less in the next town over." The Globe found that a box of Thin Mints sold for $3.50 in Rockland, Massachusetts and $4.00 in neighboring Norwell” should be removed as well, as the citation of the Rockland and Norwell prices gives a limited impression of pricing when councils setting prices has already been established.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 21:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
bi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The current lead section reads as follows:
Here's a proposed re-write. Explanation below.
This proposal removes a few things: It doesn’t take a position on how many adults vs girls sell the cookies ( WP:V there is controversy in the RS around how to cast this and that controversy doesn't seem to belong in the lead, so better to not take a position on it). It doesn’t include the unsourced ‘girls decide' or ‘community projects’ use of funds ( WP:RS has lots of content though on which levels of the org get the proceeds so let's go with that). It doesn’t include the months of cookie season (just to be shorter, but fine to re-add). It replaces the mention of prizes with badges (these seem more prominent in the WP:RS but maybe there's a better source that does both?).
It adds a few: It mentions the cultural significance, though maybe there's a better term than 'cultural phenomenon'. It puts the clear breakdown of the use of proceeds into the lead. It also includes an explanation of the levels of the Scouting to explain the use of proceeds. It adds badges instead of prizes and adds the name of one badge. It places the general cultural significance at the front, and puts the GSUSA claims about the aims of the programs later in the lead. It also puts more explanation of the council level control of varieties and proceeds in the lead, which is very prominent in both understanding the proceeds and all the coverage about varieties.
I could see switching the order of the second and third paragraphs. I could also see adding more about the popularity / beloved nature of the varieties.
FacultiesIntact, User talk:North8000, others, whaddya think? Chris vLS ( talk) 01:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The requests for my comments seemed to include intended pings but were just links to my page. I'm watching this article but not close enough to catch those moments without pings....sorry I missed. I have not done the more in-depth work that others have here. With those disclaimers, my thoughts are: I did think that faccillitiesintact's version sounded a bit promotional. Not that there were any serious problems with it. Some of the subtle issue comes from the choice of contents, which lean towards the type of things that a promoter of the program might want to present rather than what an encyclopedia reader would be looking for. Again, there aren't serious issues, they are subtle. And, at a quick superficial look, I think that btphelps's version improves with respect to that. North8000 ( talk) 15:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Omojola
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Pricing Subsection is less detailed, and is slightly at odds with the same information in the Overview.
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)
" * 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
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)
I merged the articles together and created a redirect Jdchamp31 ( talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
I work on digital media for one of the manufacturers of Girl Scout cookies. I just wanted to alert everyone to the news release on the Girl Scouts of America Web site which states:
“Girl Scout Cookies Not Affected By Peanut Butter Warning”
http://www.girlscouts.org/news/news_releases/2009/girl_scout_cookies.asp
Please help us share this good news with friends and family so that they can continue to enjoy Girl Scout Do-Si-Dos® (Peanut Butter Sandwich) and Tagalongs® (Peanut Butter Patties®). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.26.78 ( talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about the reduction in the number of Thin Mints, Do-si-dos, and Tagalongs per box to the Selling Process section. Pikachu sensei ( talk) 05:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The trivia section is too long; I've deleted some entries and reduced the length of others.-- Parkwells ( talk) 12:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
WHY IS THERE NO BORDER AROUND THE PICTURE ON THE PAGE?! It displeases me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.68.229 ( talk) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Anybody know anything about a company called Burry's that used to bake Girl Scout cookies? I ran across some discussion about how the quality declined after Burry's quit baking them. I don't recall any baker other than ABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.74.72 ( talk) 12:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the controversy that arose regarding the Tagalongs box in the late 90's? Was that box ever changed? There was erious discussion that its advertising text had a lesbian slant to it....I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP! I remember reading about it in Manhattan's Village Voice, and other publications at the time, but this is all I could find online SEE: http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=10785 I kept a Tagalongs box of cookies for years, knowing I could get a good price for it as a collectable some day...then I ate the cookies in a feeding frenzy one night. (signed, CodeNameMary)
EDIT: Oh, I see the box was discussed in this discussion thread at "The Straight Dope". Not a citable source, but has some background : SEE: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-62508.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codenamemary ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Girl scout cookie's are gross! Boysrsocute 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
A disproportionate amount of space is given to Samosas, despite their status, as noted in the article, as the number two cookie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.78.161 ( talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Was there a previous section describing the differences between Samoas and Caramel DeLites? If so, why was it removed? W00tfest99 ( talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
A manufacturer requesting return of its product from consumers is a product recall. Voluntary withdrawal is a PR term and is not (usually) used by reliable secondary sources (compare voluntary withdrawal and product withdrawal with recall). Ponydepression ( talk) 08:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI - the Do-Si-Dos/peanut butter sandwich cookies were known as Savannahs in some parts of the country in the '80s - perhaps they still are. This warrants an inclusion, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.163.8 ( talk) 18:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
I sold my fair share of these and I loved them! They were called Scot-Teas (not sure of spelling). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.174.130 ( talk) 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
So there are points here that can be worked into the article but using Andy Rooney's message isn't it.
SchmuckyTheCat 03:27, 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)
But store cookies mostly taste like crap. They're dry and flaky and tasteless unless they have icing. I sort of think Andy was implying that it was ironic how little girls were selling such inexpensive things at such extortionate prices. And from an economic standpoint it would be better to sell cookies for less since you would then sell more boxes (that part is a blatant attempt on my behalf to get boxes to cost less) Spencer R. Phillips ( talk) 05:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the move to American Girl Scout Cookies. There was no discussion and there is no organization named American Girl Scout.
I suspect the move came about because of the globalize tag. Are there other Girl Scout organizations that formally sell cookies?
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of cookies with dual names (such as somoas/caramel delites)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.114.34 ( talk) 22:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"Licensed baking companies can offer up to 28 varieties of Girl Scout cookies. The same types of cookies are sold under different names by the different bakeries." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there any other organization that sells GIRL SCOUTcookies? If so, then we should move this article to Girl Scout cookies (Girls Scouts of the USA). Otherwise, I don't see the need for the globalize tag. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The last time I checked, Girl Scout cookies were priced at $3.50 a box. Has something changed that I don't know of, or is this the price of cookies in every council except my own? Forestpaw13 ( talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to vary, depending on the Girl Scouts organization selling them. I just removed this small paragraph:
The linked page, http://www.girlscoutsnorcal.org/pages/product_sales/cookie_sale.html doesn't say anything about a national pricing policy, just what the price is from Girl Scouts of Northern California. And the price there is $4.00, whereas, my daughter's scout troop, in Philadelphia, are selling them for $3.50. TypoBoy ( talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The trans fat is not listed because of rounding. If less than .5 grams is present per serving, it is listed as 0 grams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.159.149 ( talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
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 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).
The description of the Girl Scouts' statement on this was misleading and not in accordance with the press release cited, and so I have changed it to a more accurate version. The old version strongly implied that the Girl Scouts were saying that their cookies did not actually contain trans fats. What the press release actually says is that "all varieties will contain less than 0.5 grams trans fat per serving, which meets or exceeds the FDA guidelines for the 'zero trans fat' designation" (from the same press release cited in the article). This is not the same thing, and so I have updated the article accordingly. 76.123.9.139 ( talk) 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
A criticism I'd like to see some research on is the idea that Girl Scouts as given itself over to being an organization whose primary purpose is to sell cookies -- this is an idea I've heard before, and turned to Wikipedia to try to find some research on it. Perhaps some enterprising soul would like to do some leg work on it to perhaps represent a smaller viewpoint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.110.17 ( talk) 05:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's worth digging into a little history of the previous names of some of the Girl Scout cookies. Like the person who mentioned the Savannahas above, there were also Trefoils (shortbread) and Hoedowns, which were the chocolate covered peanut butter cookies. This was around the time of Yangles. Before Samoas, they were called Jubilees and they were more of a bar-shaped cookie, about 2 inches in height, 1 inch in width. If I think of more, I will add them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.219.11 ( talk) 03:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Girl Scout cookies, plural? All the major references refer to "cookies," including the official GSUSA webpage, where it even shows that name is a registered trademark ("Girl Scout Cookies®"). Besides, just on a logical level, we're not talking about one cookie, it's about many different varieties which make up the program as a whole.
Am I missing something, or shall we go ahead and move the page? Kane5187 ( talk) 00:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Girl Scout Cookies Mike Cline ( talk) 16:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Girl Scout cookie →
Girl Scout cookies – The subject of the article is a group of branded cookies which consists of numerous varieties. The plural usage is universal among the references cited, including the Girl Scouts website, which indicates that the plural form is the official name as well as a registered trademark ("
Girl Scout Cookies®"). I realize that per
WP:PLURAL singular article titles are generally preferred, but I submit that this qualifies as "Articles on groups or classes of specific things". Consensus was not established on the article's Talk page, so I'm listing it here to solicit further input.
Kane5187 (
talk) 04:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The article previously stated "During World War II the Girl Scouts sold calendars rather than cookies, due to shortages of flour, sugar, and butter. [2]" I have added references from newspapers of 1942 through 1945 which document that GS cookie sales continued throughout the war years, though with deliveries cut somewhat. In 1943 some councils limited customers to 2 boxes. The girlscouts.org reference was misleading, and said that they started selling calendars during the war (true) but someone inferred that they stopped selling cookies (manifestly untrue). Edison ( talk) 02:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Citation 2 has reported false information on Cookie Rewards. I don't know how to find the proper source, but I personally earned my first trip to camp using "Cookie Dough" in 1988. I began selling cookies in 1986, and I have a badge for each year of sales. I earned a US Savings Bond as the3rd highest seller in my council in 1997. I think that "Age Appropriate" may have been misunderstood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C487:8B20:A1BC:56C4:7859:2B36 ( talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Should this article mention that a popular strain of Marijuana is named after Girl Scout Cookies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.188.243 ( talk) 04:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Who determines and or charges shipping for GS Cookies? Online orders start at $11.35 per box for any civilian address on the continental US. Any military base whether on continental US soil, Alaska/Hawaii and any overseas US Base shipping starts at $20.00 per box.
GSUSA will not divulge who their shipper is and constantly skirts the question saying that the shipping fees are on par with any shipping agency.
After all is said and done Girl Scouts get to keep only .60 cents per box...who gets to keep all of that money charged for shipping and handling plus all of the other fees attached (esp via the Digital ordering from the website)
Someone is pocketing money and even the Girl Scouts don't get a cut. What about the military? Why do they get OVER-charged?
Instead of deleting this section...let's please answer the question(s)....Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.159.34 ( talk) 22:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Girl Scout Cookies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://http{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dchieftain.com/news/78448-03-09-08.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=287169When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
nn content fork-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Since the beginning of 2019, it looks like Trios have been discontinued after the release of Caramel Chocolate Chip. As such, I think it makes sense to remove it from the table in the Varieties section and down into the Discontinued section, to read like this:
* Trios: Gluten-free peanut butter oatmeal cookies with chocolate chips. [3]
Would someone without a COI mind making the update? Kintetsubuffalo or DocWatson42, could either of you take a look?-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I've been in touch with Girl Scouts of the USA about making some general improvements to this article. It seems that the overall content of the article is OK, but it's in need of some reorganization for clarity and better referencing.
To start, I reviewed the references only to find primary and poor secondary sources. Once this is complete, I'll present a sandbox with the new suggested references to support the current content. I'll post back here with a sandbox once it's ready, but if anyone has any suggestions or concerns, I'm happy to collaborate on changes to this article.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool. BTW, when I was talking about the lead going from a B- to a C+, I really wasn't commenting on any removals from the lead. Just that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Typically the referencing is in the article rather than the lead. Wouldn't it be better to keep the conversation here so that it's in the article's history? North8000 ( talk) 22:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm planning to swap in FacultiesIntact's version of the article. Then we can edit/evolve it from there. Does anybody have any objections? North8000 ( talk) 19:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
For multiple reasons I've been off the grid for 7 days. Now I'm only 1/2 back. :-) FacultiesIntact, is there a correspondence between old and new sections so that the swap could be done section by section? if not.... I'd be willing to sub the whole new draft in, but I don't think I'm up for a lot of long term slower work. Chrisvls, even if not ideal, would you be OK with that and then it could be edited from there? So, not everythign in the new draft is considered to be accepted, it's just a step towards that. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything in there about administrative cost controversies. I don't even know what those would be. Running the local office is one of the things that they do and one of the things that fundraising supports. Of course you could call that an "administrative cost". North8000 ( talk) 15:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
When I said "I don't see", I didn't mean that I thought it should be in the article. What I meant was there is talk as if it were in there but it isn't. I actually think it shouldn't be in there. North8000 ( talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(Sub-heading added by north8000 after the post)
In the interest of collaboration and demonstrating that I'm acting in good faith, I'd like to propose some changes to the History section. A few things didn't seem to follow NPOV or have an encyclopedic tone, so I grouped some of the paragraphs together to help create a more cohesive narrative and avoid it reading too much like a timeline. @ Chrisvls and North8000:, below is a detailed list of my proposed edits to the History section:
I'd also like to propose joining paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 together, 4 and 5 together, and 6, 7, and 8 together to actually turn these separate thoughts into cohesive groups. I'd also recommend moving the statement in paragraph 6 "In 1998, cookie sale awards were instituted." to the Sales section, as it's more relevant to that section than it is the greater history of the cookies themselves. Lastly, I found an archive link for the DeVan article here:
[2]--
FacultiesIntact (
talk) 01:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Thanks @ North8000 and Chrisvls: for taking a look at everything. I understand the thought behind moving the transfat and palm oil content, but I worry that the sections would be too devoid of content otherwise. I'm working on rewriting the HFCS statement per Chris's suggestion (as well as some other things), but I have some other changes I'd like to propose in the meantime, this time in the Varieties subsection. I removed a large amount of unsourced content and worked to better integrate the Thin Mints content that had been merged in from when it was its own article for cohesion.
So, instead of this:
Original text
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies, with Samoas/Caramel deLites the second most popular. About 50 million boxes of Thin Mints were sold in 2013 compared with 38 million boxes of Samoas. Thin Mints averages about 38 cookies per box and Samoas 15 cookies per box.
Girl Scout cookie varieties include: Thin Mints
Thin Mints are a type of cookie sold by the Girl Scouts of the USA. Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies, the second in popularity being Samoas. [1] About 50 million boxes of Thin Mints were sold in 2013 compared with 38 million boxes of Samoas. Thin Mints average about 32 cookies per box and Samoas 15 cookies per box. [1] Operation Thin Mint is a program by the Girl Scouts of the USA, led by Girls Scouts from the San Diego-Imperial Council, to provide military members with donated cookies. [2] The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East. [3] Since the program began in 2002, [4] the Girl Scouts have shipped over 3 million boxes of cookies. [5] Keebler manufactures a similar cookie known as a Grasshopper, which is produced in the same factory as Little Brownie Bakers's Thin Mints. [6] |
it would look like this:
Proposed
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies, with Samoas/Caramel deLites the second most popular. About 50 million boxes of Thin Mints were sold in 2013 compared with 38 million boxes of Samoas. Thin Mints averages about 38 cookies per box and Samoas 15 cookies per box.
Girl Scout cookie varieties include:
Operation Thin Mint is a program by the Girl Scouts of the USA, led by Girls Scouts from the San Diego-Imperial Council, to provide military members with donated cookies. [2] The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East. [3] Since the program began in 2002, [7] the Girl Scouts have shipped over 3 million boxes of cookies. [8] Keebler manufactures a similar cookie known as a Grasshopper, which is produced in the same factory as Little Brownie Bakers's Thin Mints. [6] |
(I removed the table in the section for markup reasons here, I don't actually intend to suggest removing it.)-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 02:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
References
BI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fox5SD
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).USN
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
References
Additionally, some of the old Thin Mint content is overly specific to the cookie type. Operation Thin Mint is alluded to in other sections, and Keebler’s Grasshopper isn’t relevant enough to Girl Scout Cookies as a whole to be included. The lines “Operation Thin Mint is a program by the Girl Scouts of the USA, led by Girls Scouts from the San Diego-Imperial Council, to provide military members with donated cookies.[44] The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East.[45] Since the program began in 2002,[46] the Girl Scouts have shipped over 3 million boxes of cookies. Keebler manufactures a similar cookie known as a Grasshopper, which is produced in the same factory as Little Brownie Bakers's Thin Mints” should be removed.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again to both Chrisvls for your efforts in reviewing my proposals. I'd like to propose a few more things that I've identified as needing improvement. In regards to the lead section, I thought the opening could be restructured to ensure that the content was actually supported. I also think the information about prizes should be removed, as it doesn't seem to be essential information to convey in the opening of the article and is adequately covered in the Sales section:
In the Sales section, I felt that a lot of the information was actually unsupported by the references provided or was otherwise redundant. I think the line about cookie prices in Massachusetts should be removed as it gives arbitrary price points, rather than conveys that each council sets the price for the region. I also think the Profits section should be retitled as Proceeds to reflect the fundraising nature of the program, and added to the Sales section as a subheader rather than stand as its own section. Combining the two helps group the relevant information together.
Girl Scouts sell cookies to relatives, friends, neighbors, and others in their town or city. In recent years, because of safety concerns, an increased emphasis has been placed on cookie booths, where girls sell from tables in public areas under the supervision of adult troop leaders, rather than door-to-door. Many councils offer the option for customers to sponsor boxes of cookies to be sent to U.S. servicemen and women. [9] Cookies are also available online. [10]
Also in the Sales section I think the line “Also, award badges exist for sales: Cookie Count, Smart Cookie, The Cookie Connection, Cookie Biz, and Cookies & Dough” should be removed as it’s no longer current, per https://www.girlscouts.org/en/our-program/badges/badge_explorer.html. The lines “Traditionally each regional Girl Scout council set the prices for cookies sold in that council. A 2006 article in The Boston Globe noted that price "is hardly ever a factor, until buyers find out that the same box of cookies is selling for less in the next town over." The Globe found that a box of Thin Mints sold for $3.50 in Rockland, Massachusetts and $4.00 in neighboring Norwell” should be removed as well, as the citation of the Rockland and Norwell prices gives a limited impression of pricing when councils setting prices has already been established.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 21:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
bi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The current lead section reads as follows:
Here's a proposed re-write. Explanation below.
This proposal removes a few things: It doesn’t take a position on how many adults vs girls sell the cookies ( WP:V there is controversy in the RS around how to cast this and that controversy doesn't seem to belong in the lead, so better to not take a position on it). It doesn’t include the unsourced ‘girls decide' or ‘community projects’ use of funds ( WP:RS has lots of content though on which levels of the org get the proceeds so let's go with that). It doesn’t include the months of cookie season (just to be shorter, but fine to re-add). It replaces the mention of prizes with badges (these seem more prominent in the WP:RS but maybe there's a better source that does both?).
It adds a few: It mentions the cultural significance, though maybe there's a better term than 'cultural phenomenon'. It puts the clear breakdown of the use of proceeds into the lead. It also includes an explanation of the levels of the Scouting to explain the use of proceeds. It adds badges instead of prizes and adds the name of one badge. It places the general cultural significance at the front, and puts the GSUSA claims about the aims of the programs later in the lead. It also puts more explanation of the council level control of varieties and proceeds in the lead, which is very prominent in both understanding the proceeds and all the coverage about varieties.
I could see switching the order of the second and third paragraphs. I could also see adding more about the popularity / beloved nature of the varieties.
FacultiesIntact, User talk:North8000, others, whaddya think? Chris vLS ( talk) 01:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The requests for my comments seemed to include intended pings but were just links to my page. I'm watching this article but not close enough to catch those moments without pings....sorry I missed. I have not done the more in-depth work that others have here. With those disclaimers, my thoughts are: I did think that faccillitiesintact's version sounded a bit promotional. Not that there were any serious problems with it. Some of the subtle issue comes from the choice of contents, which lean towards the type of things that a promoter of the program might want to present rather than what an encyclopedia reader would be looking for. Again, there aren't serious issues, they are subtle. And, at a quick superficial look, I think that btphelps's version improves with respect to that. North8000 ( talk) 15:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Omojola
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)