Talk:Fruit snack

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allie Fitz25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some sources: http://www.alldayidreamaboutfood.com/2011/09/homemade-gummy-fruit-snacks-healthy.html http://www.welchsfruitsnacks.com/ http://www.generalmills.com/Brands/Snacks/Fruit%20Snacks.aspx

I am not familiar with the citation format, but I will be happy to clean up this article if someone else can add the citations. THX, Ax1om77 22:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the time to find out exactly where the references should go because I am busy in other areas of Wikipedia right now. Try reading Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/How-to guides/Reference & source guide specifically the section on Wikipedia's reference tool. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners even has a how to video for using the reference tool. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I really want more Fruit Winders from Kellogg's.

I want more Orange, Raspberry, Tropical, and Lemon Fruit Winders, along with Sputters, and Squiders from Kellogg's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.77.174 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Good for you! TheEsb (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

POV

The introduction (and potentially rest of the article) read like some kind of polemic against fruit snacks. While I agree with the general idea of the implied claims, I don't think this is suitable for an encyclopedia article:

• "A fruit snack is a sugary processed food marketed to the parents as a snack for children in the United States."
• "The main content is sugar, especially refined sugar derived from concentrated white grape juice and apple juice."
• "The main differences between gummi candies and fruit snacks are the marketing and advertising approaches, and the use of refined sugar"

The old revision available here at least doesn't come out of the gate swinging as hard, though I would argue the last reasonable revision for the intro was all the way back in 2014. It seems like the article could define what the snacks are in the intro and then leave the discussions about marketing and health issues for later on. 76.231.26.14 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of wiki gaslighting. It's just diatribe enough to be non-neutral, but factual enough that it's hard to dispute. "The modern, highly processed fruit snack has nothing in common with dried fruit." Perhaps an agent of a company that deals in dried fruit wrote this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hr8WDHUABYGjW (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Eh, it's pretty accurate. "Fruit snacks" are practically candies marketed as healthier than other "candy". Not much controversy there... TheEsb (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)