Good articleConsumption of Tide Pods has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2018Articles for deletionKept
February 4, 2018Articles for deletionKept
September 8, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
September 17, 2022Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that there was an internet challenge to eat Tide Pods?
Current status: Good article

Sources for improvement[edit]

I think this article would be improved or solidified by adding information about actually eating the pods. As in, the whole phenomenon of children (and adults) eating Tide PODS & the health risks associated with eating them.

Here's a couple sources discussing that:

Soulbust (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

🇮🇴 Also would use the couple sources already included right now in that section. Soulbust (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In early 2018, a boy named JR could have suffered a horrible death within minutes of eating 3 tide pods.[4]" seems unworthy of Wikipedia in both source and content. --Hugh7 (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another reference for adding info to the article: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/7/16987704/tide-pods-meme-new-york Soulbust (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion[edit]

I understand what WidowXTracer2Cute means when he says it's not that good of a subject matter for its own article, but I don't think that deletion is the right course of action. I think we should expand the article to cover more than just the consumption of Tide Pods. I think it should encompass all memes relating to consuming hazardous materials. Some examples include drinking bleach (usually Clorox brand) and eating silica gel. Thank you for a minute of your time. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh brave new world... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Idea for this page[edit]

My idea for this page is that we go through with the deletion however we add more to Here(Or merge it). Then this page would be redirected to the page i just linked. Sound good? Wkc19 :) (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renamed the page[edit]

I renamed the page to Tide Pod Challenge from "Eating tide pods". Reasons are in edit summary. Hope I didn't mess up. Niqabu (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's consensus for moving. Although there's minority but robust opposition, the point raised by supporters is more aligned with WP:AT which explicitly says article titles should be clear description of the subject. It has been noted with detailed rationale that the current name has only been covered in section of the article. From the history page it seems the article's scope has been expanding since creation and will normally continue which makes it quite reasonable to move the title to cover wider scope. The current title will normally remain redirect and point to the appropriate section. Iff in the future the Challenge becomes notable on its own then the redirect can be usurped for developing full article. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tide Pod challenge → Consumption of Tide Pods – The actual Tide Pod challenge only occupies a small section of the article. The majority of the article centers around the meme joke that Tide pods look edible and around the health risks surrounding their consumption. It has been brought up that Tide Pod challenge will be the thing people will search for on Google, but Google searches do account for redirect pages and this should still come up. pluma♫ ♯ 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People do get that the "Eating Tide Pods" thing is another millennial suicide meme, right?[edit]

As header. See https://mic.com/articles/181752/why-does-everyone-on-the-internet-want-to-die-how-death-memes-took-over-the-web#.gswRzTK5o for some mentions of the general prevelance for suicide memes.

Also some factual inaccuracies regarding there being a rise in tide pod consumption. People have been keeping a closer eye on their toddlers because of the meme, greatly decreasing the amount of tide pods eaten.

"According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2017 saw the lowest number of cases (10,570) of child exposure to laundry detergent pods since 2013, the year after such products debuted." from https://www.vox.com/2018/1/4/16841674/tide-pods-eating-meme-tide-pod-challenge

Also, older people with dementia are by far the largest group to die due to tide pods.

https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-2017/laundry-pods-killing-dementia-patients-fd.html

6 dementia patient deaths, 2 children, 0 millennials.

The meme is also, partially, about how boomers are stupid and will believe anything. But they kind of took that and ran with it a bit hard, creating the "millennials are actually dumb enough to eat tide pods" meme so cherished by the group with the most tide pod deaths, the elderly.

I'm not going to edit the page myself though, because I'm a lazy millennial. Also it would ruin it a bit if the boomers caught on, but w/e. I have a bit of a compulsion when it comes to things being accurate and I've satisfied that by over explaining the joke here on the talk page.

2601:545:4600:D514:A044:AC84:C99B:87EA (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forbidden Fruit really worthy of "See Also"?[edit]

It seems rather tangential to the article itself. Sure, it's referenced semi-often in the meme, but that is already addressed in the article. 181.115.108.141 (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Widen scope to "laundry detergent pods"?[edit]

Some of the sources are talking about laundry detergent pods in general being consumed by children and the elderly (eg. of eight deaths recorded in the US, two were non-Procter-&-Gamble products, and it's not clear that the other six were specifically Tide Pods, rather than a different P&G pod). Is it worth clarifying the article, and even renaming it? --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More images needed[edit]

A picture of the tide pods in the clear bags would be a great addition to this page. In addition, showing some of the memes would add more depth to one's understanding of the internet phenomenon. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlynnp33 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ga response[edit]

@Etriusus: don't get how those are copyvios. i'd have to go back and check and look through the sources where they're from but those specific sentences seem like they're wording the info just fine and originally?
I checked the first sentence for example (the "The health risks posed by the ingestion..." that starts off the Health risks section) and Earwig says the potential copyvio stems from a 54.8% similarity with this opentran.net link. I just don't get how that'd be a legit copyvio when it seems that the opentran link is just copying what is written on the Wikipedia article? For good measure I plugged the exact sentence into google word for word and it pops up as this I'd have to assume the potential copyvios for the other sentences are for similar reasons, due to the similar writing style employed in them (i'm sure I wrote a good portion of those myself, albeit years ago at this point... I can't quite recall).
All your other concerns (Images, Sources, Prose, and Refs) are fixable. I think fairly easily, and I'll get to work on those right now. Taking those copyvios aside (because I genuinely believe we'll run into the same issue with each one of them), I think this should probably be patched up soon and looked at again. Soulbust (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soulbust:, I finally got around to this. Did you clean up the sentences already? I was going to do a second earwig check to make sure I didn't flag any WP:MIRROR sites on accident and none of the tagged sentences showed up on the follow-up. Apologies if I tagged it in error. If you want me to review the second nom, feel free to ping me when it goes up. Etrius ( Us) 16:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Etriusus: Hi, I fixed all the other concerns you mentioned aside from the 1) Mashable source (don't know why it wouldn't be okay for inclusion here, but I can remove it in most of its references within the article, as it is often paired with another source), 2) the infobox (see checklist below), and 3) the overall restructuring of the article / health risks section. The copyvio problems seem like they stem from mirror sites, but the other issues have been attended to. Thinking about submitting for another GA review soon. Soulbust (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soulbust: Sounds good! I'm not saying that the Mashable source is intrinsically bad, just that one needs to be cautious when using the source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). That's why I asked why its reliable, not that it should immediately be removed. Once the page is ready, I'll gladly re-review it if you wish. If you want someone else to take GA2, just lmk and I'll leave the nom alone. Etrius ( Us) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Etriusus: Alright sounds good. I'm going to nom it again right now, as I believe the copyvios are being driven from mirror sites and I took care of the other concerns aside from the Mashable source, which I'm figuring we can go more in-depth on during a GA review. Soulbust (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soulbust Perfect, thankfully most of my critiques seem to have been taken care of, so I don't foresee this being a particularly long review. Etrius ( Us) 01:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

checklist

Images  Done
Sources
  • Mashable isn't the best source, what makes its use here reliable?
  • This appears to be a message board and a primary source. Try to cut this, maybe an external link instead. Same with the onion source.  Done Moved to external links. Think the thought process was to provide that primary sources in the references. Soulbust (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is cited to youtube. The citation is incomplete and dubious at best. Is this citation necessary?  removed earlier
Lead
Health Risks
Internet Meme  Done
Refs  Done


I'm checking off some stuff here and will continue to check back here.Soulbust (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edited a bit right now, will edit more later. Soulbust (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Tide Pods look like candy[edit]

This CNN article explains how the Tide Pods came to look like candy, in case it's helpful: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/16/business/tide-pods-laundry-detergent-history/index.html Cielquiparle (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories