Talk:Cheesehead/Archive 1

Archive 1

Weasel

The sentence "The wearer of that original foam hat then had the idea of starting a business selling cheeseheads hats." weasels out mention of the actual inventor's name. 172.195.125.33 02:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about the birth of the Cheesehead and found the name of the inventor, which is included in the paragraph. I also added the address, in the external links section, to the company which manufactures the hats. Tyler 06:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Now now my dutch friend, Its a title we wear with pride. If we don't, our rivals (cough cough Vikings) Know it.

WSU?

Anybody have evidence for the Cougar Cheese can hat? They don't sell it (or even mention it) on their site, so its inclusion is probably not warranted any longer. --Chancemichaels 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Weasel words

removing the two italicized statements from this para:

Cheesehead was used derogatorily on the 1980-1990 sitcom Full House. The use of this word on the show caused the word to be used more commonly. Michelle Tanner continually calls her Uncle Jesse this name. Some people think that the show's use of this phrase helped it gain worldwide popularity.

Repetitive, unsourced, and weasely all at the same time. --Chancemichaels 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Adam Knowles reference

I've removed the Adam Knowles reference as it was confusing ("The hat was originally made in four sizes. Small, medium, large, and Adam Knowles"). The original version added an explanation about Adam Knowles, but I have been unsuccessfull in locating any reference to it, so instead of reinstating the original version I've decided to remove it completely. It is an amusing anecdote though, so if a reference can be found, I think the story should be included again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claus L. Rasmussen (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dutch cheese heads

The Dutch are also called "kaaskoppen" in Dutch which translates to cheeseheads. The reason the dutch produce lots of cheese. It means something similar as blockhead, stubborn, rude etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.177.207 (talk • contribs)

But this is the English-language Wikipedia, so this is not relevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You could confirm that this name is also what the Dutch are often called, over the world they are known for their cheese, I honestly thought the reason why Wisconsin people are called Cheeseheads because they were of Dutch ancestry but I see this is not the case. You argument is invalid because on Wikipedia there are large numbers of items of other cultures. If I follow your logic it means you can't make an article about the Danish royalty because this is the English wikipedia and Danish isn't English. I always thought Wikipedia was an international source for information not only for English information, you could just put the reference in or else remove all the non-English information off the English wikipedia. DiCapo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.10.149 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually "kaaskop" does not refer to the Dutch in general, but specifically the provinces Holland and Friesland. 88.159.64.210 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not true: ask a Briton and he will refer to "the Dutch" when asked what/who are "cheeseheads". Ask any Dutchman and he will answer the same and absolutely not "people from Noord- and Zuid-Holland and Friesland". I'm flabbergasted that this meaning of cheesehead is not added to this page. I'm even more flabbergasted with the reason: the argument "But this is the English Wikipedia" is shockingly stupid and not relevant of itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.76.108 (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Papillon (book) and the Dutch : Origins of the word

(wow, that sounds like a line from one of the Austin Powers movies)

There is now a well sourced reference to the word "Cheesehead" which appeared in print in the 1970 English version of the novel Papillon (book). This book (and subsequent Papillon (film) in 1973) were both very influential media in the latter half of the 20th century, the movie was nominated for two academy awards and a golden globe. I can understand where Packers purists would not like anything that detracts from their rivalry in the article, but we are an encyclopedia and the etymology of words have a specific place in our articles. These origins do not detract from the common usage of the word, they enhance the understanding of it. I can see that this has come up before in 2009 and from the reading of the consensus from then, inclusion in the article of the non-sports origins have a place here. Timmccloud (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Included conversation from User:Orangemike's talk page

(Orangemike) With you being an administrator, I'm extremely surprised you made a reversion of the Cheesehead article, the second by two editors in the last couple days. I do NOT want to get into an edit war, and I wanted to know 1) Why you reverted it a second time without discussing it on the talk page, or 2) Why you did not message me on my talk page to discuss the reversion, and/or 3) Why you did not include a reason for your reversion in the edit description. All of these omissions I would expect from a neophyte editor, but NOT from an administrator. I see that in 2009 you were performing similar reversions, and consensus on the talk page was to include the reference to the usage.

• Your reversion appeared here
• sock reversion appeared here
  

My entry that you reverted is a well defined, well sourced, historical reference to the word Cheesehead in print, from nearly 20 years prior to the usage being usurped by current football fans (one of whom I am - I live in Wisconsin and am a GB fan). You cannot ignore the history of the word, it's usage in world war II, nor it's historical reference in one of the preeminent books of the latter 20th century. I would like an explanation from you on your reversion, and I am still considering restoring my edit in the absence of an explanation, but I want to make sure we do this in a consensus matter and not skirt the edges of WP:3RR. Thank you! Timmccloud (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, my laptop is acting up right now. What I meant to post at the time, is that a work of fiction is not a WP:RS. We need more solid references for something like this. (By the way: nice to run into another Wisconsin Wikipedian; whereabouts do you live? I'm in Milwaukee.) --Orange Mike | Talk 05:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Madison! (Technically Marshall, WI), and the feeling is mutual. However, I must sincerely disagree with your personal definition of a reliable source for the first apperance of a word, fiction or non-fiction. New words enter the English language all the time via novels, and the wider the circulation of the novel, the more likely the word would enter common usage. Currently Pappilon is ranked #85 (that's within the top 100) of crime and novel books on Amazon. Between 1968 when Henri Charrière wrote Papillon and the time of his death in 1973, Pappilon had sold about 5,000,000 copies in 16 languages - reference [1] on the encylopedia britannica no less. There are currently 387 versions of the book in existance as per worldcat.org. Papillon was one of the most popular novels in the late 70's, and it's use of cheesehead in a disparaging way is a true predecessor of the usage in a sports rivalry. And if you make this argument of unreliable sources, I have to call into question the non-sourced phrase at the beginning of the article "Cheesehead is a nickname, sometimes used disparagingly, referring to a person from Wisconsin" when the only source is a redlined link. I would close my argument that your reference to WP:RS notes that this a guideline, and it meets all of them. 1) It meets all three parts of the definition of a source, the work, the author and the publisher. 2) It meets the guideline of a reliable source for "books published by respected publishing houses" - There are 387 reliable sources for you to check out in an earlier link. 3) The sources are not 'unreliable" critera as they are not: Opinion as a questionable source, they are not self-published WP:SPS, they are not circular sources WP:COPYWITHIN WP:ABOUTSELF. Sadly Mike, I feel that I am within my rights to restore the reference, call into question your reasoning and use of reversion as a disputation tool, and finally note that I'm copying and moving this conversation to the article talk page AND reporting the multiple reversions to the noticeboard in order to keep our discussion and edits under review by other administrators. Timmccloud (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a Wiktionary entry, it is an article about the object known as a cheesehead. If you want to write a separate article called Cheesehead (epithet), that would be fine, and a work of fiction not even written in English could be used as a source. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize it's not a Wiktionary entry (the format of my entry would be different ;), however as an article about "Cheesehead" it states NOTHING about the "object" until the body of the article. The article starts with the opening words "Cheesehead is a nickname...", and nicknames have origins other than their final usage in popular culture. The article does NOT Start with "Cheesehead is a hatlike object...", therefore stating that it's two separate articles is silly. Besides, you and I both know that if a second article on an almost identical subject would be fast tracked to be merged within the original article, so the suggestion of "Cheesehead (epithet)" is redundant. This article IS about Cheesehead (epithet), and it evolves into a reference to the hat. You are really talking about a new article called "Cheesehead (hat)", which this article does not state. Timmccloud (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually mike, you had a tremendous idea. The article deserves to have the nickname and the hat clearly seperated into different sections. Done! Timmccloud (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheesehead. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mkeonline.com/story.asp?id=353849

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 17:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheesehead. 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/20061021205506/http://www.cheesehead.com/index.asp to http://www.cheesehead.com/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheesehead. 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/20090302092337/http://www.cheesehead.com/aboutus.asp to http://www.cheesehead.com/aboutus.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)