Jump to content

Talk:Girl Scout Cookies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.209.219.11 (talk) at 03:00, 29 September 2012 (Savannahs and Other Previous Names of Cookies: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconScouting B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconGirl Scout Cookies 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force.
WikiProject iconFood and drink B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconUnited States B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Savannahs!!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Burry's?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're not crazy - I remember the cookies with the large sugar crystals on top. They were around in the 70s too. Don't remember their names though - sorry on that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trans fats and sources

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

The remaining 3 grams are (mostly) cis isomers of unsaturated fats. There are some (from zero to less than half a gram -- which is 0 grams, rounding to the nearest gram) trans isomers as well. Not all of the mass of partially hydrogenated oils consists of trans isomers -- there's also a lot of saturated fats, and the particular mixture of saturated, cis unsaturated, and trans unsaturated oils may vary. 69.250.214.192 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pricing Scheme

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

" * 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge of Samoas

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Samoas

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Peanut Butter Recall of January 2009 does not include Girl Scout cookies

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mention controversial "Tagalongs" advertising?

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 (talkcontribs) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girl scout cookie's are gross! Boysrsocute 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Recall / voluntary withdrawal

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)[reply]

What is the purpose of dual names?

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)[reply]

The article infers that cookies are sold under different names in different areas, but does not explain why or where this takes place.Lexlex (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Incorrect history

The article previously stated "During World War II the Girl Scouts sold calendars rather than cookies, due to shortages of flour, sugar, and butter.[1]" 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)[reply]

Move reverted / Globalize

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)[reply]

Canada and some of the Pacific ring, that I know of.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Girl Guides of Canada sell Girl Guide cookies.[1] Do any other groups sell Girl Scout cookies? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.girlguides.ca/cookie_story Cookie Story - Girl Guides of Canada --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are Girl Guide cookies. Add a section on other organizations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing

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)[reply]

It appears to vary, depending on the Girl Scouts organization selling them. I just removed this small paragraph:

As part of the change in organizational structure in August 2006, this variation was ended, and all troops now sell cookies at the same time, in the early months of each year, and at the same price, $4 per box.[2]

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)[reply]

Globalize

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)[reply]

Asked and answered. I was trying to avoid the silliness of the question the last time it was asked, but since it's recurring, here goes. If it's an "elevator" in American English, and a "lift" in British English, Wikipedia policy does not require two separate articles, the most common name is used for the article title, other names and uses are listed in the body of the article. To put a finer point on it, we've established that other countries sell cookies, they may even be called biscuits or wafers, but should be mentioned here until an article is large or important enough to warrant splitting.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Savannahs and Other Previous Names of Cookies

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 (I think were Thin Mints or maybe the shortbread, not entirely sure) and Hoedowns, which were the chocolate covered peanut butter cookies. This was around the time of Yangles. There were also Samoas, which used to be the Caramel De Lites. 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.