Jump to content

Talk:Cheerios/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Team Cheerios?

I am fairly confident that this has not been discontinued http://www.cheerios.com/ourCereals/TeamCheerios/TeamCheerios_home.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.77.45 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


slogan

Does anyone else remember that Cheerios' slogan in the early 90s (maybe late 80s) was "The Unsinkable Taste of Cheerios" or something like that? I notice we have a huge gap in the slogan list after the 60s and am wondering if this can be added to fill part of it. But I can't remember clearly enough. Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is Australian Cheerios "Multi-Grain" Cheerios?

The article says, 'In 2005, Cheerios was introduced to Australia through Nestle and has been marketed as a healthy cereal containing four whole grains; oats, wheat, corn and rice. It comes with the slogan "Four things are better than one." It is also marketed as "Four good reasons to love Cheerios." '

Cheerios in the US is well-known as an oat cereal, precluding the other three grains. However, one of the spinoffs (listed on the chart) is "Multi-Grain Cheerios," which indeed has all four grains. It isn't bad, actually, I've had it, but I wonder if General Mills and Nestlé introduced "Multi-Grain Cheerios" in Australia simply as "Cheerios?" That's the only way I can make sense of the slogans reported to be in use in OZ. Lord Geznikor 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Fruity Cheerios had been discontinued.

I saw an advertisement for it during American daytime network television on July 13, 2007. I also saw it during the local morning news in Vancouver, British Columbia on July 30, 2007 (which is today when I posted this note). That note of discontinuation may need to be deleted until confirmation. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk)

Fruity Cheerios is still listed as a part of the Cheerios family here. Also, General Mills has a product locator (here). I searched for Fruity Cheerios within 50 miles of my location and found dozens of stores that carry them. As far as I can tell, they haven't been discontinued. -NatureBoyMD 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki cheerios.jpg

Image:Wiki cheerios.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into one Article

I do not think it is necessary to have five articles on Cheerios. One is sufficient 212.43.71.31 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't think that the articles should be merged. Cheerios is a type of cereal and then the others are spinoff cereals. Its like tv shows: you have an article for the first show, and then articles for all the spinoffs 69.157.62.49 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki cheerios.jpg

Image:Wiki cheerios.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Torus-shaped?

I have removed this text from the lead: " (They have also been referred to as torus-shaped. though the "'O' shape" is a better fit in the case, due to the marketing technique of the name "Cheerios" implying happy "O"s.) "

I think this is a little ridiculous. Firstly, it does not indicate who referred to them in this manner. Secondly, although technically correct about the shape, "torus" is not a very common word and I find it highly unlikely that General Mills ever considered calling it "Torusos" or "Cheeritoruses" or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It could have been worse. It could have been Taurus shaped. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

considered a drug by the FDA

I think it is a mistake to just toss that off in the lead and then not explain it. Since this is a very new development, it probably doesn't belong in the lead at all, and to just throw it out there without explaining why the FDA made this rather odd decision seems like a disservice to readers of the article. It should probably have it's own section, it doesn't really fit with any of the current sections. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheerios is not a "drug". Assuming the FDA story is true and not cribbed from the Onion, they are simply challenging General Mills' claim that Cheerios helps to lower cholesterol. Basically, challenging sales puffery. That's a slippery slope, though, since many foods claim to provide various health benefits. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


No, actually, if you read the sources, this is true. This isn't an "Onion" crib. Also, they aren't "simply challenging" their claims. Technically (and legally) Cheerios is considered a drug (more specifically a "new drug"). New drugs must prove their health claims to the FDA, but are still considered drugs. Check out the sources if you don't believe it (one is the actual FDA warning sent to General Mills). Don't go making claims about your interpretation of the facts before doing the required research. Many foods DO claim health benefits as do many supplements and vitamins. The FDA doesn't screen supplements and/or vitamins, and foods can claim health benefits until/unless the burden of their claims labels them as a drug (as is the case here). I'm fine with having a separate section if you so wish to write it. However, I think it is folly to take it out of the lead altogether as it is legally not JUST a breakfast cereal at this point. Please do not assume that I'm here to vandalize. My contribs can show that I am an active, helpful editor. Wikiwikikid (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't believe anyone has accused you of vandalism here. I also don't believe that the statement about it being a drug should be the very first sentence of the article. I'm kind of at work at the moment, but if no one else cares to I'll re-write when I get some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, no one did accuse me. I just wanted to make sure you knew for sure that I am a serious editor. Also, I'm at work too so I can't do it. However, I would like for you to hold off on taking the lead out until more editors can weigh in for consensus. I don't have any bias or vested interest in this article so I'm coming from NPOV. In fact, I had never looked at the article until I read the news and thought that it should probably be included in the article. In your re-write though, I hope you do be transparent as to the FDAs claims. They do, in fact, consider it a drug (not just a warning letter for their advertising/marketing). Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Where does this kind of thing stop, though? Next they'll be labeling Krispy Kreme as a drug because it helps curb hypoglycemia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know (or care) where it stops. I think we can both agree that it's not our job to determine what is a drug. Regardless of whether we agree with the assertion or not, it is what it is. Also, per WP: LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." I think this makes it clear that even if we add a section to the article, the lead STILL needs to include the drug claims. Also, can you send me the link for donuts being a drug so I can change that article too? ;-)... kidding. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
How long ago did Cheerios start making these claims vs. when did the FDA decide that Cheerios are a "drug"? And has MLB heard about this yet? They might decide to classify Cheerios as a performance-enhancer. Also, I'm getting this mental picture of a pill bottle containing individual grains of Cheerios. KK's, though shaped similarly to Cheerios, would require a larger-than-average pill bottle. That's another interesting mental picture. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh, not sure when they began making these claims, but the FDA said "Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug," in their 5 May 2009 letter. Perhaps people at the FDA are loony toons? Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, that's what I was wondering. These might be the same folks that decided ketchup is a vegetable. Meanwhile, I've formulated my mental picture of a KK pill bottle. I think you could actually improvise one out of a coffee can complete with its plastic lid. That wouldn't take up too much room in your desk drawer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd gladly sacrifice my desk space for lower cholesterol! That having been said, if we're using coffee cans for pills, what're we going to do with the coffee grounds?! I guess we'll have to drink it... Psh, next thing you know we'll be calling coffee a drug. Oh...wait... Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The grounds could absorb into the donuts. In fact, it's time to invent a pill that combines the best features of both: sugar, fat, caffeine, etc. Coffee-and-donuts in a single pill. A logical extension of that great visionary, Kramer, and his idea of ketchup-and-mustard in the same bottle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Allright you jokers, I've added a section expanding the drug controversy. I think it addresses the core issues pretty well. The FDA does not actually seem to be complaining that Cheerios really is a drug, but rather that it is marketed in a way consistent with a drug. My guess is that GM will just drop or tone down the offending language from the package. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Again, our job is not to establish truth, but to write an article based off of verifiable and reliable sources. "Drug" is a legal term, and in the US, the FDA determines what is a drug. Further, the FDA does in fact, take the intended use (the marketing) of products into whether they consider it a "drug" or not. The bottom line is that FDA said Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug. Therefore, until or unless something changes (which very well may be the marketing), it IS a drug... Wikiwikikid (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What I wrote in the article itself does not contain anything not in the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The new section is a quite accurate translation of the legalese involved; it is true that the FDA contends that Cheerios is being sold as a "drug," but in the language of US administrative agencies (FDA's regulations in particular here), FDA needs to do so to effectively take issue with General Mills' health claims at issue (clinical studies regarding efficacy in treating disease). FDA can't take action based on its jurisdiction as to foods; there is no reason to believe that the Cheerios product is contaminated or adulterated, and FDA is not contending that it is poisonous. More cites would be needed to establish that FDA is doing this as a part of its broader efforts to rein in manufacturers' claims regarding health effects of dietary supplements. Steveozone (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm actually fine with the section's wording, but as I said earlier, WP:LEAD requires that "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." The info really does need to be mentioned in the lead. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see it as all that notable. We've got one independent source on what will probably become a minor footnote in the history of one particular cereal. However, if you think you can work it into the lead in a way that does not give it undue weight, go ahead. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, nelly! There are MANY independent sources... not one. Only one is currently in the article, but there are MANY MANY independent sources for this. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks great, boss! Thanks for your help! Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cheerios/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'm not expert but I'm fairly sure the fibre data, 4 grms = 2% of daily amount, is incorrect. I think the UK value is about 20 grms/day. That would mean 4grms = 20%. Robert Slack (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheerios/Archive_1&oldid=718097505"