Talk:Famous Amos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Wow, I was just sitting here bored and eating a package of these cookies. I honestly didn't expect to find their history.

Way to go! XD

TotalTommyTerror 19:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

criticism?::
I had heard that the quality of Famous Amos cookies are nowhere near what they used to be, and that people are disappointed. Any info on this?

These arent very good cookies. I mean. They are ok. I am eating them now. I would give them maybe a 6/10. PrettyMuchBryce 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No documentation for this, but the likelihood is that with various changes in ownership there have been changes in the cookies' recipes. How close to or far from the version now sold in big yellow bags is from what used to be in the older, smaller bags, only experts or people with really good taste-memories can attest. Whether they now are 'as good', 'better', or 'not as good' are points of view, and by definition, not encyclopedic.

--JWMcCalvin 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First, let me say that I ate countless bags of 'Famous Amos' cookies while traversing parts of Southern California in the late seventies. Back when the freeway travel there was possible. So I can indeed shed some light in this area.
When I pass a yellow bag of Famous Amos ca. 2006 cookies on the shelf at the store, my heart gets very heavy, and I become sad to the point of despondency. It would be generous to describe those little brown pucks as a shadow of their former incarnation. Truthfully, the only thing they have in common is the name.
Saying that this is 'not encyclopedic' is casting a quick, shallow, and improper judgment on this story. It would be like saying that the change of Coca Cola's formula in the eighties to New Coke is not encyclopedic, which clearly it is. Both from a historical and societal perspective. Just because something may go unnoticed (which this did not by the way) does not make it any less important.
One problem is that the biography of Wally Amos, the originator of the Famous Amos cookie has been edited and/or facts omitted that does not tell the complete story of his cookie, and by doing so has sucked the NPOV out of it making it a biased entry. It seems that the article was submitted only to cast a favorable light on Mr. Amos, rather than present historical fact. I.e. that the cookie that bears his name is nothing like the original.
This subject needs to be researched further in order to present a careful, fair and complete presentation of the facts (as Wikipedia likes it). Both this article and the biography of Wally Amos needs editing to remove bias and add some historical facts, with cited references. I do not have a specific time frame for doing this, as I have other projects and obligations Nodekeeper 08:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
First, I appreciate the degree of personal knowledge you bring to the issue of Famous Amos cookies,but there may have been a misunderstanding about my use of the term 'encyclopedic': I was referring solely to subjective opinions regarding quality.
To use your example of 'old' vs 'new' Coke, the fact of a change in formula is a verifiable historic event. The reactions to it (many negative) are also verifiable. On the other hand, if in the Wikipedia entry on New Coke an editor were to write "I didn't think it tasted as good," clearly that would be a POV and therefore non-encyclopedic.
I can't argue with the premise that Famous Amos cookies taste different to those who do indeed have a strong recollection of the former version--any more than I can disagree with the assertion that they are 'shadows of their former incarnation.' However, I would not expect to find that phrase incorporated within the article itself; that's a POV, not a verifiable statement according to my understanding of POV and NPOV and verifiability. My apologies for the lengthy response.

--JWMcCalvin 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I did not put any of my musings in the main article and said that their needs to be more research. perhaps a macro side by side photo of the two cookies would be appropriate in a future revision (if they could be found - he is baking the old cookies), which I do not have time for now. Making the coke/new coke analogy not appropriate, as the two cookies are worlds apart. Wally Amos said as much, and that *would* be fodder for the article if I could dig up the quote. As I said, this article needs lots more research. Nodekeeper 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of apparently unlicensed product

I removed thumb|right|220px|Package from a Singapore outlet, circa 2007. as it appears to be of an unlicensed product. Unless citation can be provided which identifies that Kellogg's/Keebler is opening/licensing franchises in APAC, the image shouldn't be included as not notable to the article. Thank for your contributing to WP, all the same. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A simple and painless google search of "famous amos singapore" brings you right to the Singapore website. Unless you think even the website is not bona fide. Or have the wrong concerns been addressed? Chensiyuan 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)