Talk:Graham cracker

comment 1

The "Modern Version" section has a decidedly nonneutral tone. It describes unbleached flour as "better", states bluntly that modern graham crackers "could not be considered health food" (without defining health food) and connects the health complaints to North American children using the phrase "Despite all this". It strikes me as opinionated. Anyone read it and agree/disagree?

WAIT did cookie monster usually eat graham crackers??? reallly??? Source?!??!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.41.27 (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

comment 2

Changed from "what Americans call... or what the British would call" - "the British" is too colloquial and midly derogatory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.202.24 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

comment 3

The Graham CRACKER was an American invention, ergo it is not called a "digestive biscuit". If you Brits had invented it then you could call it anything you wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.221.78 (talk • contribs)

And the first record player probably wasn't called a record player. Does that mean that it wasn't? Ewlyahoocom 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Probably"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.41.217 (talk • contribs)

OK, so you tell us. What were digestive biscuits called in America in the 1800's. For bonus points, what are they called today? Ewlyahoocom 18:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason this can't be written in a dialect-neutral manner, which the comment "it is more like a digestive biscuit than a cracker" is not. That comment is rather like adding the opposite comment to the digestive biscuit of "it is more like a cookie than a biscuit."

If anything, the dialect used here ought to be U.S. as (regardless of where it was invented) it does seem to be much more of a U.S. product (my Scottish colleague had never seen or heard of the things before coming here).

However besides the dialectual difference, there is some sense to the comment, as a graham cracker is rather unlike what are commonly called crackers in the United States, in particular being sweet and therefore more like a cookie in U.S. parlance (though the shape of it makes it lean toward cracker).

I'm going to take a crack at rewriting that to be more dialect-neutral.--Ericjs (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey maybe a little less hostility?

Its gram cracker. No reason to get work up over missed facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.86.38 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I uploaded a photo, taken in my kitchen before a midnight snack, as requested. I removed the tag for "Requesting Photo". I included the dinner knife in the photo to show the scale of the crackers - for those who have never seen a graham cracker!Calbookaddict (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Graham bread here

I have proposed to shift the Graham bread article here as the information there is redundant, and Graham crackers are more prevalent today than Graham bread. Maikel (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged. (Almost everything was already here). RJFJR (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But the word "bread" isn't even mentioned? IMHO there should be two articles, one for Graham bread and the other for Graham cracker. --romanm (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Graham Wafer

Just call it a graham wafer -- no need to consider whether its a cookie or a biscuit or whatever. I thought initially that wikipedia didn't have an article on it until I found it via a google search.

Purpose?

In the original Trivial Pursuits game, a question says that Graham created the graham cracker as a cure for alcoholism. Know anything about that? Terracottaqin (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Graham did not invent the S'more

Commercial marshmallows were not available in the early 1800's, so the bit about Dr Graham using his wife's wafer to get a roasted marshmallow off the stick without getting his fingers sticky is surely a false attribution. The earliest known receipe for s'mores dates to a 1927 Girl Scout Handbook. Autumnanox (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I agree-this change to the article was apparently written Oct. 6 by an unregistered user. Should it be deleted? Also, the History section in general is pretty bad - the only good information, in my opinion, is: "Graham crackers were originally marketed as "Dr. Graham's Honey Biskets" and were conceived as a health food as part of the Graham Diet, a regimen to suppress what he considered unhealthy carnal urges, the source of many maladies according to Graham."--68.193.135.139 (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Text removed -- this was a clever, but ridiculous edit. Chocolate bars were not available until later in the 19th century. Rickterp (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

empty footnotes?

Why are footnotes #1 and #2 vacant? I don't see the point in having footnotes with no content at all. Chillowack (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Digestive Biscuit reference inaccurate

Why are digestive biscuits mentioned in this article? They are nothing at all like graham crackers. This comparison should be deleted. Chillowack (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

AK: digestive biscuits are not part of my dialect of English, but the few times I've tasted them when traveling I thought they tasted like American honey-sweetened graham crackers to me. Which is anecdotal at best, but such a comparison is not inappropriate. 24.218.21.53 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Second footnote

The link in the second footnote is currently broken. I don't know anything about the DOI system, so I don't know how to go about fixing it myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.162.219 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect for ... thirteen years

This article has said for thirteen years, since it was created, that Sylvester Graham invented the graham cracker. That is what unsourced editing does to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that there is an error in the history of this humble food. It's a pity you don't elaborate, but I shall. Herman Melville, in his novel Pierre, published in 1852, makes a number of references to poor people eating Graham crackers. It's in Book XXII:

"They went about huskily muttering the Kantian Categories through teeth and lips dry and dusty as any miller's, with the crumbs of Graham crackers. A tumbler of cold water was the utmost welcome to their reception rooms; at the grand supposed Sanhedrim presided over by one of the deputies of Plotinus Plinlimmon, a huge jug of Adam's Ale, and a bushel-basket of Graham crackers were the only convivials." [Emphasis mine.]

Since this was about thirty years prior to the date given in the article, may I suggest somebody look into it. At the very least mention the reference to "Graham crackers" as early as 1852. References are easy to find. The full-text of Pierre exists in the Gugenberg Project. Roricka (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Graham cracker uses

I've removed the following bit from the article:

"Grahm crackers can be used as an ingredient in various deserts, among the more well known are as a base for pie crust and cheese cake as well as an essential ingredient in making smores."

But it was reverted shortly thereafter by another editor, who argued that the removed info was "common knowledge". I disagree, arguing that a statemetn like that would require some referencing to a reliable source. Otherwise, its an editor adding their private knowledge to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And I have had to revert it out again; the addition of recipes from various cookbooks isn't the same as an explicit reference noting that the subject is used as such. Indeed, doing so is actually an example of Synthesis: the contributor adds references to graham cracker usage in recipes and then draws the conclusion that they "are used in various deserts," "among the more well known", etc. All of it is the contributor's opinion. Find an explicit source that states the flexibility of g.c. as an ingredient, and you are in a better position to argue for its inclusion. Until then, no dice.

I'd also point out that noting information in the Lede without expanding on it in the body of the article is something else we don't do. Rather than argue and belabor the point, I'd urge the contributor to expand the article to include all sorts of wonderful info about graham crackers. Arguing the losing side of an argument isn't the best use of their talents. I am not tryong to keep them from doing so; I am just making sure that editorial opinion/personal experience isn't a part of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sections

I don't think sections bring a lot of value to a page this short. It can even be expanded a bit before it becomes too much of a slog and needs breaking up, in my view... Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the article quite a bit, so added a few sections back in, so it reads and looks less like a wall of text. Check out the article now. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

OK! Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• You people sure have devoted a literally unholy amount of time and attention to the humble graham cracker on my birthday and beyond. Is there something about graham crackers I should know? Perhaps if you have some time you might tackle the Bristol stool scale; I think some of the information there is actually inaccurate. (Random user) 20:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Masturbation?

Are Sylvester Graham's views on masturbation really relevant to an article about graham crackers? Seems like a bizarre non sequitur. 70.178.58.115 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

100% agreed. Seemed like an extremely out of place and irrelevant point to include. Null b0nsai (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)