Talk:Peanut butter and jelly sandwich

Vandalism?

I deleted information on a marine inventing the sandwich in WW2, which seems to be vandalism. Other dates were changed to make it more believable, though by another user, which I also fixed to reflect the cited sources. I am posting here in case they were good faith edits. 2605:A000:1313:4006:EC6D:8D16:3BE6:2620 (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

absolute nonsense in the article

"A peanut butter and jelly (or jam) sandwich, or PB&J, includes one or more layers of peanut butter and one or more layers of either jelly or jam on bread. " This is wrong Jelly is the American word for what British people call Jam. Jelly in British English is what americans call Jello and isnt something anyone puts in a sanwhich. The lead makes it sound like people put Jello or 'Jelly' into it. The article should make it clear that this is a sandwhich of Peanut butter and Jam(Jelly to Americans) its a difference in english and and not the case that some people put Jelly into it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is not quite right. In British English we do have conserves called "jelly." Redcurrant jelly being the most obvious but you can also find Quince jelly if you look hard enough (Tiptree does one). Strictly, "golden shredless marmalade" is a jelly, as is "Bramble Seedless Preserve" (Robinsons and others) In older cookbooks you will find many recipes for such jellies: strained through a jelly bag and set with pectin just like a jam, but without the solids. See for example "Mrs Beeton's book of Cookery and Household Management:" London, Ward and Lock, 1960, pp 1046-1050: "Jelly-Making." for an earlier recipe, try the "Currant Jelly" in Hannah Glasse "The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy" London, 1747, which she also uses as a base for a raspberry jam. 151.170.240.200 (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Good For Environment?

Article states peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are godo for enviroment and the source comes from a peanut butter and jelly sandwich producing company! Human type of consumption is not good for the enivorement, it's just less bad when compared with meat kind of food. This should be made clear. People come here and read they are doing a good thing for enviroement if they eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.119.95 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am again removing this text: "PB & J sandwiches are also considered to be good for the environment. <ref name="PB&J">{{cite web |title= PB& J Campaign|url= http://www.pbjcampaign.org |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=22 September 2009}}</ref><ref name="NBC news">{{cite news |title= Smooth move: Veggie PETA-butter |first= Brian |last=Williams |newspaper= [[NBC Nightly News]]|date= 2010-09-13|url= http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#39160149 |accessdate=2010-09-14}}</ref>"

The NBC source says PETA is starting a campaign. It does not say PB & J is "considered to be good for the environment". The "pbjcampaign.org" source is PETA claiming PB & J is good for the environment. PETA's interest here is in promoting a vegan dietary option, not in presenting an unbiased, expert assessment of the science involved. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with PETA. It's sourced and the sources document the claim. Surf Dog (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This has everything to do with PETA. The source is PETA. PETA is not a reliable source for this kind of claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(Some additional discussion of this was lost in your archiving of the talk page. I'm not sure where you intended to put it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC))

• It's the NBC Nightly News. Sounds like a good source to me ... Surf Dog (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

NBC Nightly News did not say PB&J is good for the environment. NBC Nightly News said that PETA said it. PETA is the source for this twice. (Note, for instance, that I did not just say that PB&J is good for the environment, I said that NBC Nightly News said that PETA said it.) PETA is not a reliable source for environmental claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's still the NBC Nightly News. Surf Dog (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But they did not say what you are citing. NBC Nightly News has said that various people claim Obama was born in Kenya. NBC Nightly News did not say Obama was born in Kenya.

You cannot cite NBC Nightly News for "PB & J sandwiches are also considered to be good for the environment." because NBC Nightly News did not say that. NBC Nightly News said that PETA launched a website claiming PB&J is good for the environment. Do you understand or would you like me to ask for a third opinion to explain it? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, you don't need to get someone else to explain it. The citation works as it is, even if you don't agree. The sentence is not 'definitive,' besides there are two citations on that sentence. Surf Dog (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, you are saying that PB & J sandwiches are also considered to be good for the environment. The sources do not say that.

The website, from PETA, does not say that. It claims that PB&J is good for the environment. PETA is not a reliable source for this claim.

NBC Nightly News does not say that. It says PETA claims PB&J is good for the environment. PETA is not a reliable source for this claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, in a mislabeled "minor" edit, you've added that NBC Nightly News says that "plant-based meals have a lower environmental impact instead of something based on meat, fish, eggs, or dairy products." NBC Nightly News did not say this. (PETA's website claims this. PETA is not a reliable source for this claim, either.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PB&J sandwiches are also considered to be good for the environment because plant-based meals have a lower environmental impact instead of something based on meat, fish, eggs, or dairy products.

— "PB& J Campaign". Retrieved 22 September 2009.

• i've paraphrased the website. Its science appears sound. Surf Dog (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what your opinon of the "science" is. PETA is not a reliable source for this claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)r

• SummerPhD, stop being a wikibully. I think the last version of the sentence stands up to scrutiny, whether or not you like PETA, it was reported by a reputable source. Philly jawn (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"The PB&J Campaign is an effort of private citizens..." that is a self published source, not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think you're mixing up arguments Surf Dog (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no "science" in the claim that PETA says peanut butter is cruelty free. The only "science" claim is the website (which is not PETA). The website is a self published source. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nutrition

I have again removed this text: "The peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a high energy food, peanut butter being high in fat (and hence calories), jelly in calories from sugar, and bread in calories from starch.<ref name="USDA">{{cite web |url= http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search|title= USDA National Nutrient Database|author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=13 September 2010}}.</ref> The peanut butter provides protein, and the bread, depending upon type, some dietary fiber."

The source cited gives raw nutritional data for various types of peanut butters, jellies, breads, etc. It does not say this is a "high energy food", "high in fat...calories", "calories from sugar" or "calories from starch". The text the USDA is used as a cite for is WP:OR. The last sentence is wholly unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You don't really make a good case here. It makes sense and it is sourced. Surf Dog (talk)

The source does not say anything at all about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, nor does it say anything is a high energy food, that PB is high is fat/calories, jelly is high in calories from sugar or that bread is high in calories from starch. Someone looked up one or more of numerous breads, decided they are "high" in calories from starch, looked up one of several jellies... added it all together and decided the sandwich (which is not listed) is a "high energy food". This is a textbook case of synthesis. The source cited does not say any of what it is cited as saying. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, the source does note it. Surf Dog (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The USDA source says no such thing. I'm removing it. I'll check the "about" source and be right back. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the text to reflect what the source actually says. it does not say what you claim it says. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the information got removed. I'm putting it back. it was all sourced. Surf Dog (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

When restoring "information", make sure the information is supported by the cite. I've removed your PETA claim as the source did not say what you claim it says. If you wish to restore it, please quote the source and explain how it supports your claim.

When citing sources, the sources must directly support the information given. I've removed two of your sources as they do not say anything about PB&J.

And, again, blogs are not reliable sources. I've removed the bit about the PB&J campaign again as the source is some random person's opinion. Yeah, they put up a website. Good for them. Their opinions are not notable.

Finally, I've left the bit about fat, calories and such. You'll note it is cites a reliable source that actually supports the statement and directly discusses PB&J (unlike the version you originally supported). Yeah, it's the version I wrote. Thanks for the support. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

One only has to travel a little in the US of A to see what a large proportion of the population is grossly overweight, which is substantially caused by over-consumption of food that is overloaded with fat and added sugar, often in the form of corn syrup. The PB&J sandwich typifies this unhealthy eating so to describe it in the article only as 'healthy' demonstrates ignorance, denial, or control of information by the food industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.81.238 (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Dubious

The article states that PB&J sandwiches are "considered to be good for the environment". However, the sources for this are very poor. The website given is a PETA site. PETA is not a reliable source for what is or is not good for the environment, nor are the claiming that people generally consider them to be good for the environment. PETA claims they are good for the environment (likely because PETA wishes to encourage less animal-based food consuption).

Next is NBC Nightly News. NBC Nightly News does not state that PB&J is considered to be good for the environment. Instead, NBC Nightly News states that PETA launched the website discussed above. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the PETA website as not being a reliable source. I have removed the remainder because NBC Nightly News did not -- in any way -- say what it is cited as saying. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PETA promotes the sandwich as a cruelty-free form of eating that does not harm animals.

• This is a true statement. The source is the NBC Nightly News. I am removing the dubious tag. Surf Dog (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The source says that PETA is pushing peanut butter, not PB&J sandwiches. The website, http://www.pbjcampaign.org/how, makes the claim for the sandwich. It is not a reliable source for anything. (I previously referred to this as a PETA site. While possibly true, I see no indication of this. If it is a PETA site, there is no indication that PETA is suddenly a reliable source for scientific claims, whether you agree with them or not.) - SummerPhD (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not PETA, just a self-published source: "...an effort of private citizens..."[1] - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• The methodology looks sound to me. http://www.pbjcampaign.org/method Philly jawn (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what your opinion of their methodology is. "The PB&J Campaign is an effort of private citizens..." that is a self published source, not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Isaac Newton was a private citizen. The facts presented and the research is sound.Surf Dog (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If Isaac Newton had never published anything and put up a website, it would not be a reliable source. Your opinion of the science is a moot point. This is not a reliable source. Someone put up a website. They might be geniuses. They might be idiots. It does not matter in the least. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, not websites created by, um, whoever they are. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd removed "PETA says peanut butter is a cruelty-free form of eating that does not harm animals." as a bizarre statement of the obvious, without checking the talk page. If they were, as seems to be the case, using the PB&J sandwich as the poster food of a campaign to encourage people to reduce the meat and dairy in their diet, then we should only mention it in the article if it got press coverage beyond simple reactions to their press release. (But even then, we should write about it in the context of their campaign, not as a standalone statement about whether eating sandwiches harms animals.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

The two sources added do not mention PB&J in any way. The addition combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated. This is synthesis. The second half of the sentence cites sources used out of context to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source.This is not verifiable. The material should cite reliable sources that specifically say that PB&J has a lower environmental impact than something based on meat, fish, eggs, or dairy products. Otherwise, the material should be removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

candwich

Is the candwich just an advertisement? Surf Dog (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Candwich article itself seems fine and adequately sourced, but I don't think it necessarily merits a link from this article just because it's only available in PB&J flavour at the moment. --McGeddon (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comfort food?

I tried to state that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is an example of comfort food and the cluebot reverted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.212.124 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

SPSs and off-topic sources

Looks like this was snuck back in again.

"In 2007, the sandwich was used as an example of a "plant based meal" in the Well-Fed World's "PB&J campaign", which encouraged Americans to occasionally replace meat-based meals with vegetarian alternatives.<ref name="PB&J">{{cite web |title= PB& J Campaign|url= http://www.pbjcampaign.org/how |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=22 September 2009}}</ref> Food made from plants generally has a lower environmental impact than products containing meat, fish, eggs or dairy.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Eshel|first=Gidon|coauthors=Pamela Martin|title=Diet, Energy, and Global Warming|journal=Earth Interactions|year=2006|volume=v.10|series=Paper 9|url=http://pge.uchicago.edu/workshop/documents/martin1.pdf|accessdate=11/06/2011}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Reijnders|first=Lucas|coauthors=Sam Soret|title=Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices|journal=The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition|year=2003|month=September|volume=78|issue=3|pages=664S-668S|url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/664S.full|accessdate=11/06/2011}}</ref>"

Here are the problems:

• The first "source" is a self published source. Someone built a website and said, "Gosh, PB&J is good for the environment." Good for them. Do we add this to Wikipedia? Well, let's try an experiment. I'll start a website saying PB&J supports totalitarianism. Should we add that to Wikipedia? Other than your own POV or original research, why is one "campaign" notable and the other not? Discuss.
• The second and third sources do not mention peanut butter, jelly, sandwiches or peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. how about a source stating that there are no plant sources of B12 to support including the fact that PB&J lacks a necessary nutrient? Or a source stating that one kid used a PB&J sandwich to chase a child with a peanut allergy out of the lunch room to support a claim that PB&J has been used for terrorism? Discuss.

Barring reasonable discussion based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the contrary, I will be removing the self-published source, the off-topic sources and the material supported by them in a few days. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No you won't... since I just did it :) Your argument above is entirely correct and pretty much watertight as far as I can see, and the additional refs were clearly OR/SYNTH to support it that had nothing to do with the subject of this article.Number36 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree. Surf Dog (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I get that. Now, based on our policies and guidelines, do you have a reason for that? You've been repeatedly reverted but have yet to discuss the issues in any substantial way. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Campaign by self-published source

Is a campaign by a self-published source worth including? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(Please note the related discussion below.)

Threaded discussion

The text in question:

PB&J sandwiches have been promoted as an example of an environmentally friendly meal. In 2007, the sandwich was used as an example of a "plant based meal" in the "PB&J campaign", which encouraged Americans to occasionally replace meat-based meals with vegetarian alternatives.<ref name="PB&J">{{cite web |title= PB& J Campaign|url= http://www.pbjcampaign.org/how |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=22 September 2009}}</ref>

This is a self-published source of no particular notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would say that unless PBJcampaign.org has more coverage, adding the source to the article would be a case of WP:UNDUE. Angryapathy (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The source has to do with environmentalism and vegetarianism, not the sandwich.

* That the quote could equally appear on an article such as "Salad" or "Apples" is indicative of the lack of relevance to this article.

* That the campaign's own literature refers to it as a "novel and friendly attention-getter" therefore admits novelty as opposed to notability.

* Also from the campaign literature is that the campaign was created "to protect the environment by reducing the amount of animal products people eat" which may reasonably be taken to mean that the sandwich is not the subject and so lacks relevance.

Therefore, other than appearing in the name of the campaign, this article and the quotes with references have no relation.

Further, that the PB&J sandwich is meatless++, is self-evident and requires no supporting statements.

(++ Note: some add bacon.)

--cregil (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it could have the potential to be included, but only if the campaign got attention from the public and became a well respected source. Or, alternatively, if the campaign was considered a laughingstock and was disrespected by the public, then I would note the campaign and say that the source was not credible. Thepoodlechef (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. This has now been resolved. (See below.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic sources

Should topics that do not discuss peanut butter and jelly sandwiches be included? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(Please note the related discussion above.)

Threaded discussion

The remainder of the disputed text is in two sections:

Food made from plants generally has a lower environmental impact than products containing meat, fish, eggs or dairy.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Eshel|first=Gidon|coauthors=Pamela Martin|title=Diet, Energy, and Global Warming|journal=Earth Interactions|year=2006|volume=v.10|series=Paper 9|url=http://pge.uchicago.edu/workshop/documents/martin1.pdf|accessdate=11/06/2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Reijnders|first=Lucas|coauthors=Sam Soret|title=Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices|journal=The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition|year=2003|month=September|volume=78|issue=3|pages=664S-668S|url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/664S.full|accessdate=11/06/2011}}</ref>

and:

PETA advocates peanut butter as a cruelty-free form of eating that does not harm animals.

</nowiki></nowiki>

In both cases, the sources do not directly discuss the subject of this article. The first two do not discuss peanut butter, jelly, bread, sandwiches or PB&J sandwiches. The third source gives PETA's opinion on one of the ingredients in this sandwich, but does not discuss this article's topic. (The text in question was added to Peanut butter some time ago.) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a general observation, the sources seem unduly agenda-driven for such an innocuous sandwich. Given the size of the article, three references to environmental concerns is too much weight to carry.

I see the point regarding the source (campaign) which smacks (pardon) of unrelated NGO promotion and may not be appropriate if that is the case. The PETA references could apply to a salad or apples, and so the relevance is somewhere between non-existent to marginal. Essentially, the references might be reasonably taken to be self-promoting of environmentalism and vegetarianism-- two things the sandwich does not, of its own, do.

The sandwich does not exist because it is environmentally friendly-- and for it to be co-opted as such is distracting to the tiny article-- and is not encyclopedic. The PETA article could mention it, but it is off topic here.--cregil (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can add much, except perhaps to add to a consensus of view, but I concur with SummerPhD and Cregil's points above, this doesn't seem relevant to the specific subject of this article, and appears to be supported by OR/SYNTH.Number36 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. Do either of you have input on the similar issue immediately above this one? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree as above that the source that don't mention PBJ shouldn't be included. It looks like the off-topic source was put in to justify the PETA info. Without the off-topic source, the PETA part seems to stand out, but it's one line, so I wouldn't be adverse to it being included so long as it fit in somewhere in the article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that the PETA source is also off-topic. It is discussing peanut butter, not peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To the above section I would also have to concur with what's been said there already, with not much to add to the points already raised. In relation to the above point, it occurs to me that peanut butter by itself may not be relevant to the PB&J in terms of Peta/enviromentalism, as iirc, Jam (or 'Jelly' as it's called in the US of course), is (usually) made with a very high percentage of refined sugar, which often uses bone char, in the refinement process. Something I don't think PETA would approve of.Number36 (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if PETA did approve of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, I don't see how that is relevant unless they were trying to promote them. Now, if the government tries to promote Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches, then I could see how that is relevant. One thing I think should be included in the article is the Daily Nutrients. Thepoodlechef (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather clear case of irrelevant material being forced into an article based on an agenda. Even if the sources on this topic actually mentioned peanut butter and jelly it would be connective trivia; out of focus for the topic; undue weight to include. As a side note, Number36, jelly is not the American term for "jam". I'm not sure of usage outside of the U.S. but we make a clear distinction between jelly (a clear fruit spread) and jam (containing pieces of the fruit). However, conflictingly. PB&J even in full form is the term used when jam is involved, i.e., we do not change to "peanut butter and jam" even when jam and not jelly is used, which may have led you to the conclusion you drew.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. The material in question has been removed and the other editor (Surf Dog), who had previously been warned for meat puppetry in this article, has now been blocked for sock puppetry elsewhere. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

References

History

Has there been an attempt to put anything about the origins of the PB&J? I remember hearing something about American GI's. I feel like this is something important to the article especially if Fluffernutter and Peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich has it's history listed . It looks like it was talked about but never moved forward. Pwojdacz (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While a history section would be nice to add, we don't seem to have a reliable source for anything at the moment. Do you have anything? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Things it goes with?

Dare I ask if anyone has a source for--or, I guess, if anyone's actually tried--putting cheese on a PBJ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.201.23 (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No source, nothing to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the peanut butter go on top or bottom?

I think it would be very important to disuss whether the peanut butter should go on top and jelly on bottom, or vice versa. I think there are regional differences that should be explored. I think there is also a "pin-stripe" method that includes both products on top, paired with both products on bottom, for those who can't decide which is better. Nospamtodd (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Who is Kale Nichols?

First paragraph appears hacked, attributing the 'invention of PB&J' to a "Kale Nichols on a rainy day in 2006' The history section attributes the sandwich to two different magazine articles, neither attributed to a 'Kale Nichols' and the '2006' date is at best a typo, if not a joke. Editors should verify this entry. Thanks, Thom Pike, ABQ NM67.0.246.211 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, good job editors/monitors. That was fast. I forgot to mention the spurious entry in the side box for 'Inventor', but you got that too. tp 67.0.246.211 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090628093154/http://boyslife.org:80/hobbies-projects/hobbies/2756/keep-your-peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwich/ to http://boyslife.org/hobbies-projects/hobbies/2756/keep-your-peanut-butter-and-jelly-sandwich

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Link Errors

The second reference needs a hyperlink, otherwise we have no way of checking where the information came from. Also, going along with links not working, under the External Links tab, the first link, “Fun peanut facts,” is not working. It brings you to a site that says “page not found” when clicked on. Something I found unnecessary were the links under “See Also”. A list of sandwiches seems irrelevant when trying to solely discuss peanut butter and jelly. Melissa5464a (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What?

This article states: "either jelly or jam (less common, name used in Canada and other Commonwealth countries)" Jam is certainly a commonly known food item in the U.S., so not sure why this qualification is needed. Don't usually refer to a peanut butter and jam sandwich, but certainly have eaten them and slight error aside would likely still call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich so as not to split hairs.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The difference between the two is that a peanut butter and jam sandwich would not have its own Wikipedia page! I can't believe Americans think so little of their own culture as to reckon this merits its own entry in the Internet encyclopedia of record.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)