Talk:Girl Scout Cookies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

I would really avoid a trivia section, good articles don't have them. So if you can make them a part of the prose, go for it but make sure they are cited. So I say go for the pop culture section. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

After adding a section in the trivia in Over The Hedge, I realize how easily buried good trivia can become; there's a perfectly good space at the end of the "varieties" section. Thanks for the tip. --BlueNight 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

After remembering the Addams Family scene, with the now infamous exchange, "Is it (the lemonade) made from real lemons?" "Are they (the cookies) made from real Girl Scouts?", I did a bit more hunting around Wikipedia, and came across Scouting in popular culture. I went ahead and added a section with excerpts edited to uniformity. I'm sure I missed a few, but I feel it adds to the notability of the article. --BlueNight 07:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and fine, I would just prefer to not have bullets and have smooth flowing prose if that's at all possible. Good job though. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In popular culture and References

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

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

Two concerns with this:

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

Note the site's disclaimer:

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

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

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

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)

Merge of Samoas

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

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

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)

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)

Cookie Reductions

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)

Reduce popular culture references

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)

2007 Updates

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

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

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Retired Cookies

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

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

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

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)

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)

Andy Rooney

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

Rooney also stated that Keebler creates the cookies, and Keebler is owned by Kelloggs.

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

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

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

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

SchmuckyTheCat 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

Canada and some of the Pacific ring, that I know of.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Girl Guides of Canada sell Girl Guide cookies.[13] Do any other groups sell Girl Scout cookies? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.girlguides.ca/cookie_story Cookie Story - Girl Guides of Canada --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are Girl Guide cookies. Add a section on other organizations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

As of 2006, ingredient listings on several varieties show 0 grams trans fats. This article may need to be updated. Also, there are several quotes given such as "shouldn't be a big part of somebody's diet" but no source. Where did this quote come from? 24.155.88.186 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite added. I'm not sure which varieties do not have trans fats as of 2006, but the thin mints I'm eating right now still do. And they're delicious. :) Kafziel 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (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)

Why is the article name singular?

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)

Same reason the article for dogs is at dog-Wikipedia:Article titles.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a point here: you can buy one dog, but you can't buy one cookie. — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd always seen plural article names reduced to singular, however, Category:Brand name cookies seems to split. Either way, there should be consistency.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Support. They come in a box and this is how they are commonly known. Apteva (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support WP:IAR, common form -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Pluralization seems correct here. In addition, if "Girl Scout Cookies" is a registered trademark then "Cookies" should also be capitalized, as per MOS:TM. The page should be moved to Girl Scout Cookies. Ibadibam (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. WP:IAR doesn't apply, because WP:PLURAL allows this to be pluralized. Powers ^T 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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." 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)

Marijuana

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)

Shipping

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620115653/http://girlscouts.org/news/news_releases/2007/2007_cookie_report.pdf to http://www.girlscouts.org/news/news_releases/2007/2007_cookie_report.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://http
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dchieftain.com/news/78448-03-09-08.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=287169
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519215609/http://discuss.washingtonpost.com:80/wp-srv/zforum/02/freemedia_meidlinger022202.htm to http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/freemedia_meidlinger022202.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213020903/http://abcsmartcookies.com:80/cookies.asp to http://www.abcsmartcookies.com/cookies.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050318193911/http://www.drkoop.com:80/newsdetail/93/1505892.html to http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/1505892.html

When 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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

merge Thin Mints (Girl Scout cookie)

nn content fork--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Trios discontinued

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.

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 did it. Please let me know if I got it right. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Collaborating to improve the article

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)

I have a completed sandbox! (Link to the diff is here.) As I mentioned previously, the existing article lacks a number of verifiable secondary references. I also found that the article required expansion on some of the sections, as well as restructuring to comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines. To summarize my proposed changes by section:

• Lead - I restructured the opening in order to ensure that the content was actually supported by the cited sources, especially regarding some of the language around the claims about the size of the Cookie program. I also removed the information about prizes, as it doesn't seem to be essential information to convey in the opening of the article and is covered in the Sales section.
• History - I grouped some of the paragraphs together to help create a more cohesive narrative and avoid it reading too much like a timeline.
• Sales - A lot of the information here was actually unsupported by the references provided or was otherwise redundant. I removed the line about cookie prices in Massachusetts as I found it arbitrary and ultimately trivial. I also took the Profits section, retitled it Proceeds to reflect the fundraising nature of the program, and appended it to the Sales section.
• Production - Again I removed a large amount of unsourced information. I also worked to better integrate the Thin Mints content that had been merged from when it was a standalone article so that this article would be more cohesive. I also retitled the Palm oil subsection as Sustainability as I felt that was a more informative and inclusive header.

If anyone has the time, could you take a look to check my work for accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Any feedback you have will be greatly appreciated!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(copying response from my talk page) It looks good at first glance but if you are thinking about us updating the article by deleting the current one and pasting in the one from your sandbox for many reasons I don't think that is a good idea. Editors there often want to see what the changes are, and except if they want to invest a large amount of time doing a "compare and contrast" between the versions they are unable to see that. Second, with normal editing of an article it's possible to go back in history and see how any individual piece evolved. Not so if a whole 'nother version is substituted at once. Next, it sort of makes it a one person article instead of a collaborative effort. Finally if you are thinking of me subbing it in, I'm not comfortable with the for the above reasons plus I'd want to see what the changes are and an unable to unless I invest a large amount of time doing a "compare and contrast" between the versions. But I'd be happy to put in individual changes that you come up with. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)!

@North8000: I think it's a fair point that doing a single wholesale edit doesn't exactly help other editors track changes. I linked this diff between the current version of the article and my proposed changes, but I realize that not every interested editor is going to come to the talk page to look at it. One way it's been mitigated in the past is by linking directly to the sandbox in the edit history. With that in mind, do you think it would be more reasonable to make edits one section at a time rather than all at once?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: Well, "more reasonable" implies that your idea was unreasonable....I don't think that it was unreasonable. I'd say it milder like "a better idea". I said what I said only as advice and also a indication of what I'd personally be comfortable doing. It's fine with me if someone wants to just sub the new version.North8000 (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: I didn't mean to suggest that it was unreasonable. Rather, I'm trying to find a middle ground for us to work together. I reached out for collaborators here four months ago, and I've yet to see anyone express any interest in helping update an article that is in clear need of improvement. I know that there's a lot to review here, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to help out. Is there anything else I can do to help you review my proposed changes and implement them more gradually?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Well, you did such a large amount of work on the sandbox version that it would be a daunting task to split it up. To me at first read it looks pretty good. Maybe we can just look at the draft that is in you sandbox and then if there are no objections I could just put the whole draft in at once. Even with the diffs page I can't really tell (withoput spending a really large amount of time) what the big deletions and additions were. One big deletion that I think you did is deleted the whole secion of phased out cookies. Am I right on that? That seems like encyclopedic information. Could you discuss if there are other large deletions? There is one area where you took the article from a B- to a C+. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. You made it even shorter and and seemed to mostly cover a few key statistics and superlatives. I didn't check to make sure that what's in the lead is also in the body. Typically the referencing is in the more detailed coverage in the body. So the ampoung of referencing in the lead raises the question that you might have stuff in the lead which is not in the body.

@North8000: Regarding the removal of the discontinued cookies: I moved that content into a separate sandbox so I could focus on the remaining content. I saw that the entire section was poorly sourced, but I want to conduct additional research to support the information rather than remove it outright.

As far as removing content from the lead goes, it was either outdated or unsupported. The figure that 10-15% of net revenue goes to local councils is outdated, as it’s actually 100% now per this Vox article. I also felt that those figures were overly specific for the lead section. I removed the line “The program is designed to be led and conducted by girls and not led by adult troop leaders, volunteers or parents” because another user correctly pointed out to me that we don’t have a reliable source for that line, i.e., the only source for it is the GSUSA, and thus is unsuitable for inclusion.

The other notable deletions I made were:

• in the Varieties section for lack of relevance
• in the Sales section for being unsupported
• in the Varieties section for being unsupported or irrelevant

I crossposted this to my sandbox sandbox talk page. Would you mind if we move this conversation over there? I don’t want to clutter things here if we’re discussing the draft, and I’m happy to summarize the rest of our conversation in the name of transparency. Please let me know if there's anything else that stands out to you. I want to ensure the quality of the article going forward.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2019 (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 happy to keep the conversation here. Regarding the referencing, it wasn't supported in either the lead or the main body of the article. Generally I think that references should be tagged in both the lead and the body to prevent any confusion about what's supported and what's not. Especially with the standard that I'm held to, I try to have citations for every instance I can. Other than the deletions, can you point out anything that you thought contributed to a drop in quality?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind. If there are no objections I'd be happy to put your version in as is, and then we could tweak or evolve it from there, including the lead which I think needs some work. Briefly, the lead should be a summary of the article; IMHO your lead is too short and just has a handful of key facts. But that's not a reason to hold up putting in your version.North8000 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it! I'm always open to things changing, and if you'd like to continue collaborating on the lead after implementing the new version I'm happy to help out in any way I can.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:53, 6 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)

@North8000: It's been five days (in addition to the time since I originally posted). Do you agree there's been sufficient time to voice any objections or concerns? If so, can we proceed?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think discussing the sections here would be better. The first paragraph in the lead section, for example, needs work to not read too much like an ad. The first sentence is really awkward. The cookies are also sold by parents, as the cited sources show, so the "sold by girls" phrase is problematic. I think the 'largest program' clearly needs an inline cite, as the first source doesn't support it, the second source gives it an "according to a statement" inline citation, and the third source is about the cookie recipes and simply repeats it, there's no sign that the WP:RS did any reporting on it. I think that these changes should go through the regular process, section by section, here on the talk page. All the more important when paid editing is involved. It's slow, but that's the way it works. Chris vLS (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added the inline citation to the sentence about largest fundraiser, etc. Happy to discuss further. Chris vLS (talk) 01:55, 14 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)

Hi User:North8000! I'm not ok with subbing in the whole draft... there's are a lot of changes that I think should be discussed before being made, or that if they were single-edit requests from a COI editor, would be worthy of discussion and might not get consensus. For example:

• • the sandbox draft drops the sourced statement that high-fructose corn syrup is in some cookies
  • the sandbox draft states in the encyclopedic voice the unsourced statement: "The girls get to decide how to spend the money they make."
  • the sandbox draft omits the sourced "Council administrative costs" as one of the uses of proceeds -- even though it cites an article about the controversy around these costs
  • the sandbox draft states in the encyclopedic voice that the revenue "stays local" although it cites an article that states that some consider the troops, not the council, to be "local" and omits the national royalty cost mentioned in the citation
  • the quote about pricing differences is eliminated and replaced with a bland statement about local control of prices
  • the sandbox draft makes small changes in tone, "large national commercial bakeries" becomes "commercial bakeries" that are sourced and wouldn't pass muster if a COI editor asked for them individually
  • the lead still has "sold by girls" which is unsourced and ignores the coverage that parents sell a ton of cookies, as I mentioned above
  • the lead still has "is the largest girl-run and girl-led entrepreneurial program in the world" without inline citation, which is needed, as I mentioned above

So, if there are lots of good improvements in the draft, they will easily get consensus and approved. And it's not like I think this article needs a negative slant or something. But I think it's important that COI edits get discussed for exactly these types of issues causing articles to drift out of the right voice. So, I'm not ok with pasting in the whole thing. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

OK then, I respect that. I pretty well explained where I'm at right now regarding this. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Chrisvls, thanks for giving such specific feedback. Discussions like these really help me improve as a Wikipedian. I don't necessarily agree with all of your assessments, but I thought a few of your concerns have serious merit:

• the sandbox draft drops the sourced statement that high-fructose corn syrup is in some cookies

• The statement is inaccurate, and comes from a primary source. According to the linked source, Little Brownie Bakers doesn't use HFCS at all, while ABC does in some of their cookies. Barring a recent, quality secondary source, (which I could not find) I think it should be removed.

• the sandbox draft states in the encyclopedic voice the unsourced statement: "The girls get to decide how to spend the money they make."

• This could be more specific. Let me rewrite the section accordingly.

• the sandbox draft omits the sourced "Council administrative costs" as one of the uses of proceeds -- even though it cites an article about the controversy around these costs

• The cited article is a artifact from the current article, and is 26 years old, which I hardly think is current enough to still consider it a controversy.

• the sandbox draft states in the encyclopedic voice that the revenue "stays local" although it cites an article that states that some consider the troops, not the council, to be "local" and omits the national royalty cost mentioned in the citation

• See above. This could be more specific to accurately reflect revenue vs profit.

• the quote about pricing differences is eliminated and replaced with a bland statement about local control of prices

• With hundreds of troops, I felt it far more encyclopedic to state that local troops control prices, rather than select an arbitrary case study.

• the sandbox draft makes small changes in tone, "large national commercial bakeries" becomes "commercial bakeries" that are sourced and wouldn't pass muster if a COI editor asked for them individually

• I found the phrase "large national commercial bakeries" to be redundant, especially given that the two licensed bakeries are described in detail.

• the lead still has "sold by girls" which is unsourced and ignores the coverage that parents sell a ton of cookies, as I mentioned above

• How would you propose we rewrite it then? The current lead says that "Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by Girl Scouts of the United States of America" which is inaccurate, as the organization is not doing the actual selling of the cookies. My version is attempting to make the distinction that it's the troop members who sell the cookies. Obviously there are some breaks from the party line when parents sell cookies on behalf of their daughters, but should the lead really say "Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by girls who are members of Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA), their parents, relatives, and friends as one of its major fundraisers for local Girl Scout councils"?

• the lead still has "is the largest girl-run and girl-led entrepreneurial program in the world" without inline citation, which is needed, as I mentioned above

• This has an inline citation, and to claim that the Tanglao article did no reporting on it amounts to WP:NOR.

Now that we've addressed some of your concerns, were there any changes that I proposed that you think are suitable for inclusion? The fact remains that the article as it currently stands is outdated and in need of improvement. Are you interested in helping update it?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

FacultiesIntact, you need to slow down and make careful arguments for your changes one-by-one, because some of the arguments you are making don't make any sense. Some of your comments are not compatible with making the encyclopedia better. And they are definitely wasting the community's time. I know that is harsh, but please look at the record here:

My objection: "the sandbox draft drops the sourced statement that high-fructose corn syrup is in some cookies"

Your response: "The statement is inaccurate, and comes from a primary source. According to the linked source, Little Brownie Bakers doesn't use HFCS at all, while ABC does in some of their cookies. Barring a recent, quality secondary source, (which I could not find) I think it should be removed."

Please consider this more carefully:

• Your comment (HFCS is "in some of their cookies") makes the same claim as the content you want to remove ("High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is used in some cookies.")
• Your comment cites primary sources to claim (incorrectly) that the statement is wrong, but then you don't want to use that source to update the article. That's not how this works. Either the source is permissible or it's not. It would be absurd if we could use the GSUSA site and the bakers' official list of ingredients to remove content, but not to support it.

• You are misusing WP:PRIMARY and ignoring WP:ABOUTSELF. We can use the bakers' official list of ingredients to describe what they bake.
• Even if a secondary source were required, it takes less than ten minutes to find a high-quality secondary source to support the article's content. Here's one: [14]

My objection: "the sandbox draft omits the sourced "Council administrative costs" as one of the uses of proceeds -- even though it cites an article about the controversy around these costs"

Your response: "The cited article is a artifact from the current article, and is 26 years old, which I hardly think is current enough to still consider it a controversy."

Please consider this more carefully:

• Your comments have not cited any sources that says that the local councils do not use cookie revenue does not support administrative costs. So even if you think that that controversy article is old, you still have not made a cogent argument as to why these costs should be removed from the list of costs.
• Most charities either have administrative costs, or go to great lengths to show that a particular activity supports them, so dropping this from the list of costs without citation should raise one's own curiosity.
• And indeed, these costs are in fact funded by cookie proceeds. Again, it took very little time to find secondary sources that support the content [15][16]

So please, do not try to remove content with wikilawyering. Especially when, as in these cases, you don't have a source that says the content is incorrect.

And there may be more of these omissions in your draft... I just noticed that you dropped the mention of safety concerns with door-to-door selling. It is currently not well sourced in the article, but there are lots of sources that mention it, but you just drop it. If it is not a concern, create a new talk page section, cite a source, and make your argument. If you think the sourcing is bad, see if you can find a good source.

On the other arguments, your response to the "stays local" comment doesn't address the concern over the use of the word "local"; I'm unconvinced that your draft on costs is better -- we use examples all the time; your argument that "large national commercial bakeries" is redundant is unconvincing, it is a better summary than "commercial bakeries", since there are small commercial bakeries; I agree that the lead is difficult, since there is no source that says it is only girls, and dozens of sources that say it includes lots and lots of parents, your formulation is not ok, probably better to structure it differently; your comment on the "largest program" claim is a misreading of WP:NOR, which has no relevance here, every editor needs to be able to judge whether a WP:RS has supported a claim with reporting and fact-checking or is just mouthing a puff piece.

Of these issues, most (HFCS, admin costs, girls decide, sold by girls, largest program) of them look like a paid editor making the article less accurate, less neutral, or both. Most disturbing is to see edits to remove content that your comments concede is true or don't dispute (HFCS, admin costs). Only a couple of these strike me as grey areas or matters of tone and style.

So, please, just take a section or a sentence or a source that you feel you have really improved, create a new section on the talk page, lay out the before-and-after and offer your reasoning. If you do that, I hope, you won't fall into the traps you have above. Then we can discuss.

But, again, please, stop trying to remove content that is true. Chris vLS (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please also re-review WP:COITALK: "When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted." Chris vLS (talk) 07:42, 20 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)

Right, administrative costs is in the list of uses of proceeds now. It's hard to source how much goes to "admin costs" or "overhead" etc., because it is at the local council level. The data are good for having low overhead percentages; the sources I linked above put it in the low single digits.[17][18] We should figure out how to add that, even though the sources are going to have data at the council level. (The controversy in the old article [19] is an classic scouting one, in my experience: discussing whether paid staff and programs at the Council/District level are "bureaucracy" or "programs". At least as a Boy Scout fundraiser, it was something one has to explain ;) ) Chris vLS (talk) 16:32, 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)

I agree that I don't think the controversy needs to be covered. I feel weird dropping the "admin costs" from the list when I suspect that there are some admin costs, there are sources to say there are. What would be good would be a sourced statement that describes the basic thing that people like to know about charities -- that there are overhead costs and they are low. It's just hard to write given the de-centralized nature. I'll be off wiki for about a week and can get it a try then... Chris vLS (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes proposed Feb 27th

(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:

• Original text: The first cookie sales by an individual Scout unit was
• Proposed text: The first known cookie sales by an individual Girl Scout unit were
• Reason: For accuracy in reflecting the first known sale and the organization's name and subject-verb agreement where these sales took place

Done. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Original text: The American Girl suggested cookie sales as a fundraiser and provided a simple cookie recipe, per the new reference here:
• Proposed text: The American Girl suggested cookie sales as a fundraiser and provided a simple sugar cookie recipe
• Reason: To be more specific about the type of cookie

Done. So that's adding "sugar" and the reference North8000 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Original text: From 1933 to 1935, organized cookie sales grew, with troops in Philadelphia and New York City using the cookie selling model to develop the marketing and sales skills of their local troops. In 1933, Girl Scouts in Philadelphia organized the first official sale, selling homemade cookies at the windows of the Philadelphia Gas and Electric Company (PGE).
• Proposed text: In 1933, Girl Scouts in Philadelphia organized the first commercial sale, selling homemade cookies at the windows of the Philadelphia Gas and Electric Company (PGE).[10] From 1933 to 1935, organized cookie sales rose, with troops in Philadelphia and New York City using the cookie-selling model to develop the marketing and sales skills of their local troops.
• Reason: To maintain a chronological history. The first commercial sale necessarily precedes the growth of organized sales in both logic and time.

What is the "[10]"? Also, are you proposing to delete the existing reference? North8000 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the "[10]" is a holdover from copying the content from the article. No, I am not proposing deleting the reference, but inverting the order of the two sentences so that the information flows more logically.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Done. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Original text: In 1936 the national organization began licensing commercial bakers to produce cookies
• Proposed text: In 1936, Girl Scouts of the USA began licensing commercial bakers to produce cookies
• Reason: For clarity regarding the "national organization"

Done. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Original text: The "Samoa" was added in 1975.
• Proposed text: "Samoas" were added in the 1970s.
• Reason: For accuracy and consistency in referring to the cookies' name and usage in the plural, as well as accuracy in the date according to the cited reference.

Done. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Original text: In 2005, the Girl Scouts moved to eliminate trans fat from their cookies to be healthier
• Proposed text: GSUSA moved to eliminate trans fat from its cookies in 2005
• Reason: For clarity in referring to the organization, as well as removing the assumed intent to be in line with the cited reference

Done. I left it as "The Girl Scouts"....someone else can chang to GSUSA if they wish. Also added / retained internal link on trans fat. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Original text: In January 2015, Girl Scouts began to offer the ability to purchase their cookies with credit or debit cards via an online portal and a "Digital Cookie" app. The purchasing app can only be used by Girl Scouts themselves with parents of girl scouts only able to share a link to the purchasing page.
• Proposed text: In January 2015, Girl Scouts began to offer customers the ability to purchase cookies using an online portal though a mobile app called "Digital Cookie". The app can only be used by Girl Scouts themselves with parent supervision, and Girl Scouts are able to share an individual link to their online cookie business to friends and family only.
• Reason: For clarity and accuracy regarding the online sale of cookies.

"online cookie business" sounds vaguer, not clearer than "purchasing page" Can you clarify? North8000 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I opted for "online cookie business" as I thought that got more to the heart of how digital cookie sales operate. I thought "purchasing page" leaves it open to interpretation that there's a singular marketplace run by the organization, and the new version is intended to communicate that the link is to an individual girl scout's sale page.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Made change in portal sales per talk. Made it because OK from a COI standpoint. But I still consider "on-line cookie business" to be too vague in that context.North8000 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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:--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

I deduced that you meant the "history" section and made those joins. Where specifically in the Sales section do you propose to move that statement to? North8000 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes, and the follow-up questions, User:North8000. I'd probably leave the awards in history, as this is a page about the cookies and the program, seems like it gets a decent amount of attention in the sources and the article. I have a similar sense of the transfat and palm oil sections. There is the basic facts that should be in the nutrition/production section, sure. But these also have interesting stories -- with palm oil, a great scouting values story -- about how the change came about. They feel more like they should go to the History section rather than Nutrition/Production. Does that make sense? Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of neutral on that....IMO for me its a tossup. BTW, I don't have deeply held opinions on this.....I'm just trying to help the process along. If I do antyhing that anyone disagrees with feel very free to revert or have me revert. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't plan any action on this. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes proposed March 1st

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.

• Original text: The national Girl Scout organization reviews and approves all varieties proposed by the baking companies, but requires only three types: Thin Mints, Peanut Butter Sandwiches (ABC)/Do-Si-Dos (LBB) and Shortbreads (ABC)/Trefoils (LBB). The other kinds can be changed every year, though several popular favorites, such as Caramel DeLites (ABC)/Samoas (LBB) and Peanut Butter Patties (ABC)/Tagalongs (LBB), are consistently available.
• Proposed text: Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies.[39], 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.
• Reason: Removed unsupported content and added context about popular cookies

What did you mean by "39"? I thought maybe ref #39 but didn't see any obvious connection and those numbers keep changing. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a holdover from copying the text out of my sandbox, so it correlates to a reference there. My main concern with this content was that the claim that certain cookies are consistently available isn't actually supported, nor is the "review and approve" process. The proposed content is a slight revision of the text in the Thin Mints section.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I put in the proposed change.North8000 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you remove the duplicate content from the Thin Mints section as well? I also think we could do with removing the "Thin Mints" section header as it's really only the line about Keebler's Grasshopper that's specific to Thin Mints.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, at least for me in particular, I don't have the depth of involvement here to create edits; I'm just putting in proposed ones. Where this looks from my shoes is "figure out / decide what specifically is the duplicated content and replace it". But either way could you clarify. If it is the topic under discussion below, it should get decided first. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The text "Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout Cookies, the second in popularity being Samoas. 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." appears again here. The content I proposed (and you added) clarifies that Samoas and Caramel deLites are the second most popular, rather than just Samoas. This is distinct from the request below, as is my proposal to remove the "Thin Mints" section header. I respect that you agree with Chrisvls's assessment, so I wouldn't try to subvert anyone's expectations in that regard. As he pointed out, Operation Thin Mint is really about all the cookies and not just this particular variety, so especially given that context I think it makes more sense for all of that to be included under the "Varieties" header rather than given its own specific section.

I think I did it. I saved the cite. Let me know if I got it wrong. :-) North8000 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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 Alternative names Grasshoppers (by Keebler) Course Snack or dessert Place of origin United States Serving temperature Room temperature or frozen Main ingredients Chocolate, mint Variations Multiple 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. 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. 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. The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East. Since the program began in 2002, 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.

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: Thin Mints Alternative names Grasshoppers (by Keebler) Course Snack or dessert Place of origin United States Serving temperature Room temperature or frozen Main ingredients Chocolate, mint Variations Multiple 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. The operation sends over 200,000 boxes of cookies annually to servicemembers stationed in the Middle East. Since the program began in 2002, 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.

(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)

• Original text: Up to 28 varieties of Girl Scout cookies are offered. The same cookies may be sold under different names by different bakeries, with the choice of bakery determining the name. There has been no move to standardize names.[33][34] The merger of many councils (from 312 to 109) following the August 2006 reorganization resulted in many councils changing bakeries, thus causing some confusion at that time.
• Proposed text: Up to nine varieties of Girl Scout cookies are offered in each market. The same cookies may be sold under different names by different bakeries.[36][37] The merger of many councils (from 312 to 109) following the August 2006 reorganization resulted in many councils changing bakeries, thus causing some confusion at that time.
• Reason: There are up to nine varieties, not 28. Additionally, the subsequent sentences were rewritten for clarity and concision.

What are sources 36 and 37? Thanks. Chris vLS (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We can't make this change, it removes the only sentence that explains that the different names come from different bakeries.Chris vLS (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC) My bad, I think I got the sections mixed up. Sorry about that! Chris vLS (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's the markup for references 36 and 37. They correspond to refs 33 and 34 in the live article.

References

Those don't support the nine variety claim, what is the source for that? Is there a better source for the choice of bakery and its effect? Or maybe re-use the Plain Dealer reference? Chris vLS (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that! Here's the relevant ref. Which reference did you mean by the Plain Dealer one? This Vox article gives a fairly thorough rundown of different councils using different bakers, and how that affects cookie selection in a particular area.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The Vox article cites this page [20] about varieties, which doesn't seem to support the "nine" variety claim. Chris vLS (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

I don't think this material should be removed. The "Operation Thin Mint" material is well sourced, is relevant to the article, and has received sufficient coverage for inclusion. Your comment referred to this content as "old", but is not (it's from last year and this year's results would not be in yet). Your comment says that it is 'overly specific to cookie type.' That is not a reason for removal, nor is it correct, as one source states the program includes include "every variety of Girl Scout cookies." So it looks like what we should do is move it out of the Thin Mint Section. For the Keebler Grasshopper reference, your comment doesn't state a reason for wanting to remove it. It, too, is well sourced and certainly seems notable as it is mentioned in several of the existing sources and google reveals more. (Examples: [21] [22]) Again, please don't advocate for removal of true, sourced material from the encyclopedia without stating a clear reason why it is in the interests of the encyclopedia. Chris vLS (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not looked at this in the depth that you two have, but generally concur with Chrisvls's post.North8000 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes proposed March 8

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:

Note: The main initial posts under each subsection (typically "Original", "proposed" and "reason") are by FacultiesIntact. I subsequently added number as subsection headings and then individual discussions ensured.North8000 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

#1

• Original text: Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) as one of its major fundraisers for local Scout units.
• Proposed text: Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by girls who are members of Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) as one of its major fundraisers for local Girl Scout councils.
• Reason: It’s important to distinguish individual girl scouts from the national organization Girl Scouts of the USA, as well as Girl Scout councils from other “Scouting” organizations, rather than suggest that the cookies are sold by the organization.

I've already said that this construction doesn't work, as there is plenty of WP:RS discussion about parents selling cookies. The fact that I work in an office where I can see two sets of Girl Scout cookies in two different parents' cubes doesn't help convince me that we should ignore the coverage in the RS. Chris vLS (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Does "sold by members of GSUSA" include parents, etc.? Chris vLS (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this could be argued either way. If such help is not allowed, then you could say that the statement refers to the intended/proper situation. If it IS alowed, then you might say the parents are only helping. But the whole mess can be sidestepped by leaving it as "by Girl Scouts of the United States of America" North8000 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that an artful dodge is best here. And it is not super clear cut, given that, as you'd expect, the younger scouts are supposed to be supervised during sales, etc. Looking at the GSUSA article, "members" does seem to include both... Chris vLS (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

#2

• Original text: During each cookie season (running from January through April) the all-girl-led entrepreneurial educational program sells approximately 200 million packages of cookies, worth nearly $800 million. Members of the GSUSA have been selling cookies since 1917 to raise funds. Girls who participate can earn prizes for their efforts. There are also troop incentives if the troop as a whole does well.
• Proposed text: During each cookie season, which typically runs from January through April (although each Girl Scout council sets the timing in their local market), Girl Scouts sell about 200 million packages of cookies, worth nearly $800 million. Girl Scouts have been selling cookies since 1917.
• Reason: Rewritten and trimmed to be more concise, and to remove the note about sales awards as it's not a significant enough detail to be included in the lead.

Same comment about "Girl Scouts" as "girls" above. I will look at the awards issue later when I have more time. Chris vLS (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This should probably mention the badges instead of the awards, perhaps to tie in the skills that the program focuses on. Chris vLS (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

#3

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.

• Original text: Each Girl Scout regional council decides which licensed baking company to use for cookie sales in that council, thus determining which varieties are available in the area covered by the council.

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. Cookies are also available online.

• Proposed text: Girl Scouts sell cookies to relatives, friends, neighbors, and others in their town or city. Some councils offer the option for customers to sponsor boxes of cookies sent to U.S. servicemen and women. Girl Scouts also sell cookies through the Digital Cookie platform. Each Girl Scout council decides which licensed baking company to use for cookie sales in that council, thus determining which varieties are available in the area covered by the council. Each of the Girl Scout councils sets its own price based on its needs and knowledge of the local market.
• Reason: Updated for accuracy. Removed content about safety for lack of relevance

"Lack of relevance"? What are you talking about? This page is about the program. The safety information is part of the program. It is covered in several of the sources. It is covered in the GSUSA FAQ page that is used as a source. I have said many times, if content is inaccurate, then propose accurate information. We should replace this with a better sentence and sourcing. But, please only propose removing it if you have a legitimate reason that it makes the encyclopedia better. You have not cited one here. Chris vLS (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The only reference the I can find that makes a significant mention of it is the Duncan article from 2008, which gives the account of one regional council, and isn’t used to support the statement in question. At the very least, the statement needs to be rewritten or supported by a reference that shows that the rise of booths is directly correlated to the safety concerns. The way it’s written overgeneralizes the sentiment. I’d be open to rewriting it, citing GSUSA’s current policies on the matter. @Chrisvls: What are your thoughts?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

#4

• Original text: As an incentive to sell, Girl Scouts are offered recognitions, such as stuffed animals, trinkets, coupons, credits toward Girl Scout camp, activities, or uniforms. These recognitions vary from Girl Scout council to council. The recognitions are usually cumulative, so that a girl who earns the recognition for selling 50 boxes of cookies will also get the 25- and 20-box items. In some councils, girls may choose to earn more money for their troop instead of recognitions if they are working toward a troop goal such as a trip or other expensive activity. This type of fund raising is intended to teach Girl Scouts valuable skills in planning, teamwork, finance, organization, communication, and goal setting.
• Proposed text: As an incentive to sell, Girl Scouts are offered rewards, such as stuffed animals, trinkets, coupons, or credits toward Girl Scout camp, activities, or uniforms. These rewards vary from Girl Scout council to council. The rewards are usually cumulative, so that a girl who earns the reward for selling 50 boxes of cookies will also get the 25- and 20-box items. In some councils, girls may choose to earn more money for their troop instead of recognitions if they are working toward a troop goal such as a trip or other expensive activity. This type of fundraising is intended to teach Girl Scouts valuable entrepreneurial skills such as planning, teamwork, financial literacy, organization, communication, and goal setting.
• Reason: Changed recognitions to rewards to reflect the nature of the items. Added entrepreneurial to the type of skills to reflect the current nature of the program.

I put it in except I retained "recognitions" as "recognitions and rewards" and also retained the cite. IMO recognitions are used and valued in scouting even when it is not merely a "reward". Of course this can be changed if other do not agree. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

#5

• Original text: Elizabeth Brinton, also known as the "Cookie Queen", sold a record 18,000 boxes of cookies in a single sales season, and more than 100,000 boxes in her time as a girl scout. She is known for selling cookies to sitting president Ronald Reagan. Her record held for more than twenty-nine years, until Katie Francis, 12, sold 18,107 boxes in 2014. In 2017, Charlotte McCourt, a girl scout from New Jersey, sold over 25,000 boxes of cookies, breaking the record.
• Proposed text: Elizabeth Brinton, also known as the "Cookie Queen", sold a record 18,000 boxes of cookies in a single sales season, and more than 100,000 boxes in her time as a Girl Scout. Her record held for more than 29 years, until Katie Francis, 12, sold 18,107 boxes in 2014. In 2017, Charlotte McCourt, a girl scout from New Jersey, sold over 25,000 boxes of cookies, breaking the record.
• Reason: Selling cookies to Reagan is trivial information

The Reagan anecdote appears in most RS coverage of Brinton. Even in short summaries of teh Brinton story, the Reagan story is included, it doesn't make sense that this article wouldn't. So, I don't think it should be removed. Please review the RS coverage before making removal requests to see if your request meets standards. Elizabeth Brinton had a page that was merged with this one, we should make this section contain the color and interest in the RS and the original page, not whittle it down to a stub that isn't worth including. [23] [24] [25] [26] Chris vLS (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I know that the Reagan anecdote is well-sourced, but in the context of an article on Girl Scout Cookies, the information is trivial. Brinton is primarily notable for holding the cookie sales record, not for her clients. The Priceonomics article lists several other notable clients; are you suggesting we include them too? Where do we draw the line?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand that *you* think it is trivial. I am pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the RS coverage of Brinton, which mentions it all the time. With your edit, we would be one of the only sources to summarize her scouting career without mentioning it. The sources are right, it is interesting and notable. If we keep cutting out examples and details, the story will eventually not be worth telling. The sales record is not the only interesting or notable part of the story. Chris vLS (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think that Brinton deserves special coverage just because there currently isn’t a better place for the information. I also disagree with your sentiment that cutting out details somehow makes the story unworthy of being told. While she may be notable for selling cookies to famous people, her relevance to this article is for the sales record. I don't think we'd be including her here if she had sold cookies to Reagan without holding the sales record. We can preserve the additional references so that if the reader is that interested in Brinton, they can view the references and learn more.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

#6

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)

Let's replace the outdated bagdge with the accurate badges instead. There are several cookie badges as your source shows. Again, you proposed removing the pricing example before, I stated my opinion that having a real example makes for a livelier article. Your response here is that the example "gives a limited impression of pricing." I don't know what that means and am unconvinced. Chris vLS (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit would remove all mentions of the Cookie related badges, which is just a bizarre suggestion to make. It mean that we would have a few sentences about the trinkets/awards, which seem peripheral, and none on the badges. You are a COI editor, please try to add better information, especially when you are actually already citing the source for the better information! Chris vLS (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the pricing, I respect your opinion, but I think it’s more important to be accurate than to present a “lively” article. That seems to me to be advocating for colorful language over encyclopedic content. Regarding the badges, the two current badges are the Cookie Business badge and the Financial Literacy badge. I typically receive a great deal of resistance when trying to use primary sources, so my process has trended towards avoiding them when I can, especially when they’re the only source available.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

On the pricing example, the content is well sourced, accurate, and interesting. I am not arguing for color over accuracy. Encyclopedic doesn't mean you can't use examples of general phenomena.

On the badges, I think you need to study WP:ABOUTSELF, understanding it is pretty key to being a COI Editor. It is acceptable to cite a source about itself when "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources." So quoting the Girl Scouts site to support what badges the Girl Scouts offer is pretty much exactly that. The "biggest fundraiser" claim, on the other hand, is an exceptional claim; it involves claims about all other fundraisers, including ones not related to GSUSA; there is reason to doubt it. For that, we need a source that has actually verified the claim.

Your claim "the two current badges are the Cookie Business badge and the Financial Literacy badge" is, well, not right. According to the Badge Explorer, which you cite, there is no "Cookie Business" badge and there is no "Financial Literacy" badge (that's a topic/category of badge). "Talk It Up", "Cookie CEO", "P&L", and "Customer Loyalty" are all cookie-related badges according to the descriptions on that page.

I'm confused how a COI editor for the Girl Scouts proposes changes that are, well, wrong -- especially about simple things like "what are the badges Girl Scouts earn?"Chris vLS (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The confusion arises from the ambiguity in the way the FAQ is written. When reviewing the FAQ, the relevant text I found was “Girls may earn official Cookie Business badges and Financial Literacy badges at every level of Girl Scouting. Badges are earned based on completing established program activities.” I’m familiar with WP:ABOUTSELF, and I appreciate you reminding me of it. As a counterpoint, I often still receive pushback when interpreting it the way that you are now. I’ve learned that there are very few hard and fast rules on Wikipedia, so navigating some policies can be trickier than others. Thank you for your attention on this. Would you find it acceptable to update the line to include the current badges that you listed, supported by the Badge Explorer page?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposed Lead Section

The current lead section reads as follows:

Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) as one of its major fundraisers for local Scout units. According to GSUSA, the Girls Scout Cookie Program is the largest girl-run and girl-led financial literacy program in the world, and the largest annual fundraiser in the world dedicated to girls. The program is designed to be led and conducted by girls and not led by adult troop leaders, volunteers or parents. The girls get to decide how to spend the money they make, as 10 to 15 percent of net revenue from cookie sales goes toward local community projects or is donated to worthy causes decided by each troop.

During each cookie season (running from January through April) the all-girl-led entrepreneurial educational program sells approximately 200 million packages of cookies, worth nearly $800 million. Members of the GSUSA have been selling cookies since 1917 to raise funds. Girls who participate can earn prizes for their efforts. There are also troop incentives if the troop as a whole does well.

Here's a proposed re-write. Explanation below.

Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold each year by members of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America as a fundraiser to support the scouting program. Over the span of a short selling season each year, the Girl Scout Cookie Program involves over 1 million girls, sells over 200 million cookies, and raises over $800 million in revenue. First introduced in 1917, the popularity of the cookie varieties, the breadth of participation, and the long-standing tradition make girl scout cookies a cultural phenomenon in the United States. [27][28]

The Girl Scouts are organized in three levels – the local troop of perhaps 5 to 30 scouts, the approximately 100 regional councils, and the national organization – and cookie sales are organized by the councils. Of each dollar in cookie sales, 25 to 35 percent goes to the bakery for the cost of the cookies; 45-65 percent supports programs at the council level, such as training programs, camp facilities and other cross-unit programs; and 10 to 20 percent goes to the local unit or troop. The councils select which national bakery to buy cookies from – and thus which varieties are available in their region – as well as the timing of cookie ‘season’ in their area, the price of the cookies, and other program details.[29]

In addition to a fundraiser, GSUSA states the cookie program is designed to instill five skills: goal setting, decision making, money management, people skills, and business ethics. These skills are reinforced with scouting badges, such as “Cookie CEO.”[30][31] According to GSUSA, the program is the largest girl-run and girl-led financial literacy program in the world, and the largest annual fundraiser in the world dedicated to girls.

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)

Hey Chrisvls, I took some time to carefully review your proposal. I think it's a step in the right direction, but there's some things that I think could be changed for accuracy and grammar. Here's my proposed revision:

Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold each year by members of Girl Scouts of the United States of America as a fundraiser to support GSUSA councils and troops, and as part of an entrepreneurship program for girls. During an average selling season (typically from January through April), the Girl Scout Cookie Program involves more than 1 million girls selling over 200 million packages of cookies and raising over $800 million in revenue. The first known sale of cookies by Girl Scouts was in 1917. [32][33]

Cookie sales are organized by regional Girl Scout councils. The councils select which of two national bakeries to buy cookies from (which determines the cookies varieties available to them, as well as the timing of cookie season in their area, the price of the cookies, and other program details.[34] Roughly 25 to 35 percent of profits goes to the bakery to cover the cost of the cookies; 45 to 65 percent supports programing at the council level, such as training programs, camp facilities, and other programs; and 10 to 20 percent goes to the local troop behind the sale. 100 percent of the revenue stays with the local council and troop, and the girls decide how to spend their portion of the funds.

According to GSUSA, the program is the largest girl-run and girl-led financial literacy program in the world, and the largest annual fundraiser in the world dedicated to girls. Additionally, GSUSA states that the cookie program is designed to help girls build five skills: goal setting, decision making, money management, people skills, and business ethics. These skills are reinforced with scouting badges, such as “Cookie CEO.”[35][36]

Two of the key changes I made in the first paragraph are are a matter of precision: annually, 200 million packages of cookies are sold, and the first known sale was in 1917. I also felt that the last sentence of the paragraph was largely unencyclopedic and grammatically awkward, so I reframed it around what I view to be the heart of it: the first known sale.

I thought the second paragraph was on the right track, but I thought that it was superfluous to describe how the organization is structured. It's covered on the GSUSA article, which is linked in the first sentence. I also added a clarifying statement about the revenue staying local, as I think distinguishing the profits from the revenue is important, and ultimately a part of what the program is about.

The third paragraph was largely just rewritten for grammatical issues and rearranged to present the information in a more logical order. Let me know what you think! North8000 do you have any input?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I find the language in the lead to be a bit promotional in tone, as in "According to GSUSA, the program is the largest...", and "Additionally, GSUSA states that the cookie program..." Given the length of the entire article, the lead appears to be weighted with a bit much detail. I am confused that the bakery is paid " 25 to 35 percent of the profits" but "100 percent of the revenue stays with the local council and troop." Profits? Revenue? Which is what? Both statements can't be true. I also think the emphasis on $800M revenue is a bit misleading -- how much actually goes to the councils and troops? I think it's also pertinent to include what percentage of a Girl Scout council's budget is reliant on cookie sales. It's also well known that a LOT of parents sell for their girls to co-workers, family and friends, a semi-controversial element to this wholesome Apple Pie in America story that deserves a mention if a source can be found. Here's my two cents:

Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by Girl Scouts to raise funds to support GIrl Scout councils and individual troops. The program is intended to both raise money and improve the financial literacy of girls. During an average selling season (usually January through April), more than 1 million girls sell over 200 million packages of cookies and raise over $800 million, producing about $XXX in profit for councils and troops. The first known sale of cookies by Girl Scouts was in 1917. Cookie sales are organized by regional Girl Scout councils who select one of two national bakeries to buy cookies from. The bakery selected determines which cookie varieties are available, when girls can begin selling cookies in their area, and cookie price. The bakery is paid about 25 to 35 percent of the profits; 45 to 65 percent is used by the regional council to cover programming costs; and 10 to 20 percent is kept by the local troop whose members decide how to spend their portion of the funds. A regional council receives up to 60 percent of its budget from cookie sales. The GSUSA states that the program is the largest girl-run and girl-led financial literacy program in the world, teaching girls skills like goal setting, decision making, money management, people skills, and business ethics. These skills are reinforced with scouting badges, such as "Cookie CEO." The Girl Scouts claim it is the largest annual fundraiser in the world dedicated to girls.

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 08:04, 9 April 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)

@North8000 and Btphelps: thanks for the feedback. I certainly can understand where what I proposed could come across as promotional, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide an alternate version. btphelps, I think what you proposed is great, as it's succinct and really just gets to the point. To address your questions, revenue refers to the total value of the goods sold, whereas profit refers to that value minus expenses. My initial thought was that it helped illustrate the kinds of financial terms that are part of the cookie program, but I can see how it could be confusing and/or redundant. By the same token, I then don't think it necessary to distinguish an actual dollar amount for council and troop revenue if we're already giving percentage breakdowns. Additionally, I haven't seen a source for what that total amount would be, since the percentages vary from council to council and troop to troop. I'd keep your version intact save for that line, and would then present it this way:

Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by Girl Scouts to raise funds to support GIrl Scout councils and individual troops. The program is intended to both raise money and improve the financial literacy of girls. During an average selling season (usually January through April), more than 1 million girls sell over 200 million packages of cookies and raise over $800 million. The first known sale of cookies by Girl Scouts was in 1917. Cookie sales are organized by regional Girl Scout councils who select one of two national bakeries to buy cookies from. The bakery selected determines which cookie varieties are available, when girls can begin selling cookies in their area, and cookie price. The bakery is paid about 25 to 35 percent of the profits; 45 to 65 percent is used by the regional council to cover programming costs; and 10 to 20 percent is kept by the local troop whose members decide how to spend their portion of the funds. A regional council receives up to 60 percent of its budget from cookie sales. The GSUSA states that the program is the largest girl-run and girl-led financial literacy program in the world, teaching girls skills like goal setting, decision making, money management, people skills, and business ethics. These skills are reinforced with scouting badges, such as "Cookie CEO." The Girl Scouts claim it is the largest annual fundraiser in the world dedicated to girls.

If you're okay with that, would you mind updating the article accordingly? Thanks again for the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I only have about two minutes right now, will give a better look later. But your description of profits vs. revenue ("profits refers to the total value of the goods sold, whereas revenue refers to that value minus expenses.") is the opposite of the common meaning of these terms. Which makes your use of the term "profits" even in the revised version very confusing at best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: you're absolutely right about that. My original proposed text reflected the correct definitions, and I fumbled them in my response. I've updated them accordingly.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I put the final proposed lead in. Anyone please revert me if you do not agree. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: thanks again for your time and attention. If you have any more to spare, would you mind revisiting proposed edits three, five, and six above?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Those appear to have unresolved differences between the folks involved. On those I'd need to learn a lot in order to formulate opinions; I didn't plan on jumping in that deep time-wise on this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)