Talk:Cranberry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Energy

Are we actually considering "energy" to be a nutrient? that seems a little grade school to me... Plcoffey (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Uniquely native

If they're uniquely native to the United States, how does one explain their presence in the bogs near Ottawa and Kingston in Canada? I drove by some wild ones at the side of the road just yesterday. Are they an introduced species this far north? -- Paul Drye

oh, *I'd* cut it on the grounds of an offensive use of the word 'uniquely'. --MichaelTinkler

Okay, how bout

uniquely native to the the north American continent

I think Crannies where introduced to Canada and mid-west US well after cultivating in MA got going. It you know for sure pls make changes or corrections.

how about 'native to the Whatever'. --MichaelTinkler, who hates hates hates the word 'unique' in all its manifestations.

The plant only grows in one area of the planet, under unusual conditions (wet, sandy bogs), doesn't that make it unique to that area ?

Cranberries were found all over northern North America (wherever bogs are found) when the Europeam settlers arrived. More than likely the native inbabitants greatly enlarged the range of the plant. --- hajhouse

FYI, Cranberries are native throughout the cool temperate Northern Hemisphere, including Britain, Scandinavia, and the whole of Russia, as well as Canada and parts of the US. - MPF

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (2005), "The small-fruited, or northern, cranberry (V. oxycoccus) is found in marshy land in northern North America and Asia and in northern and central Europe." and "The American cranberry (V. macrocarpon) is found wild in the greater part of the northeastern United States." (EB does not mention The V. microcarpon and V. erythrocarpum varieties mentioned in the Wikipedia article.) -- O.M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.82.59 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Is that one sassaman, two sassamanash? -phma

---

I think they grow them here in WA and also in Oregon -- don't know if they're native, though. We have Lingonberries, too -- They aren't native! Useful info? I think not! JHK

---

Cranberries are 1 of 3 fruit native to North Amercia, the Concord Grape and the Blueberry being the others. They are Native to WA, OR, and BC in fact, under tourism they should list Washington States www.cranberrycoast.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebolinders (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC) This is just not true. Other native fruits include paw paw, strawberries, raspberries, plums among others. According to Vander Kloet (The genus Vaccinium) Vaccinium Macrocarpon is native to eastern north america. It is not native to the pacific northwest. There are good records about cranberries being introduced to coastal areas of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.123.204.50 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2009(UTC)

True, the first poster overlooked black cherries, black raspberries, huckleberries, Niagara grapes, Allegheny blackberries, and we must also not forget that Mexico and Central America are part of the North American continent as well. Widely-cultivated tropical fruits such as guava, papaya, soursop, sweetsop, and prickly pears are also indigenous to North America.

White Cranberries

Anybody happen to know anything about white cranberries? I frequently see "white cranberry" juice for sale, but I do not know whether this refers to:

1. A separate species of cranberry
2. Juice made from colorless berries sorted apart from the red ones thatgrow on the same bushes
3. A marketing term for a colorless liquid that happens to taste like cranberries

Anybody know?

---

I am a cranberry grower in Bandon, Oregon and I can answer this one for you.

The answer is ----- Juice made from colorless berries sorted apart from the red ones that grow on the same vines. And --- as needed, some cranberry bogs are picked very early before the cranberries turn red. They aren't really "white" but more green. Simply put... they aren't really ripe yet. The good news is: they have the same nutritional value as ripe ones and they don't stain.

Hope this helps! If anyone else has any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

---

Legend said cranberries were once called bounceberries because of the way they bounced. Double-check on the validity of it.

I can tell you that in the Eatmor cranberry sauce plant, ca 1958, good wholesome sound cranberries were separated from not so good ones by being bounced. Richard8081 04:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Dried cranberries can also be eaten - should be listed under "Uses"

Elven dwarves?

Is this statement about cranberries even true? I have never heard such a thing. --DrippingInk 00:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cranberry map

Can anyone explain the cranberry map - ie sources? Wisconsin is the leading producer of cranberries in the US, but its not in any color range on that map. That just seems wrong. Ehlkej 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll check. But the map is to show the native distribution, which is not necessarily the same as where they are cultivated as farm crops - MPF 14:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

false berry?

The false berry article says that cranberries are not true berries; is this correct? If so, the article should be corrected similar to blueberry, but I don't know enough on the subject to avoid being mistaken. -- nae'blis _(talk) 10:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

According to http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/book/chap7/cranberry.html and a few other obscure but authoritative (government or university) online sources, the Cranberry is a true berry. Changing it back.

Bvbacon 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Marketing and economics" addition

This large chunk of text was inserted by an anon on 27 July; it has the look of a copyvio, tho' I can't find it on the internet anywhere. It is also only relevant to the USA with no global context (Canada, Scandinavia, etc). Anyone any ideas what to do with it? Delete? Heavy prune? Expand with info for other regions and split off into a separate article? - MPF 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This section was written by a university scientist who is very knowledgeable about north american cranberry production. As there is VERY LITTLE cranberry production outside of the US and Canada there is little reason to have information about marketing etc. for Scandinavia. Perhaps more information could be included about Canada. This is still a work in progress. I suggest that this section be returned back to the main article {unsigned comment}

I think the article is currently good, but I'd like to see more statistics, like a table or graph of annual production quantities and wholesale prices. Until that happens, it would be good to have a direct link to http://www.library.wisc.edu/guides/agnic/cranberry/marketing.htm 69.87.204.179 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrel?
The article quotes wholesale prices per barrel. It should tell us how big a barrel of cranberries is. 69.87.203.56 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Washington State has their Cranberry Coast, so perhaps a section on tourism is now in order. Here is a direct link to their website, www.CranberryCoast.Org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebolinders (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:7.1 History "In 1663, the Pilgrim cookbook appears with a recipe for cranberry sauce." Is there any more information about this "Pilgrim Cookbook" published in 1663. I searched the internet for it, and the only references to it seem to be copying this reference. Could you provide an actual title and author of this cookbook? I also checked with the Foodtimeline and they did not have any info on it either. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.84.164 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pesticides

The current article pretends there are no current pesticide issues. It should tell us about recent/current pesticides, and what percent of the crop is organic. 69.87.203.56 02:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Freezing

Does freezing impact nutrition? 69.87.203.56 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Drying

Are there any commercial sources of dried cranberries that are not sweetened? Cranberries are healthy, but sugar is not particularly desireable. Some people like the straight taste. What are the best ways to dry at home? Here are some sources: How do you make dried cranberries? Sugar-Free Dried Cranberries 69.87.203.56 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fenberries

I went to a medieval-style restaurant the other day and ordered a dish called fenberrie pye, which consisted of pork, chicken, and cranberries. I was told by the cook that fenberries are another name for cranberries, but I have found no other source of information on this. So, are fenberries and cranberries the same? If fenberries truly are a synonym for cranberries, then I think it would warrant a mention in the article. FrogofTime 23:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a synonym, but was an old name for Vaccinium oxycoccus in Europe - growing in fens. Meggar 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Commercial availability

Are cranberries generally available in grocery stores all year or only certain months? -- Beland 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In Massachusetts, they seem to be in the local grocery stores fresh whole from about October to January.-69.87.200.184 13:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I find Ocean Spray Fresh Cranberries all year?
"We harvest fresh cranberries in the fall, filling the produce section at your local supermarket with lots of the bright red berries. Fresh cranberries are generally available in early October through December. Cranberries may be frozen, so we suggest that you stock up on extra cranberries around Thanksgiving to use throughout the year."[1]-69.87.200.184 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Massachusetts producers have decided not to make frozen cranberries nationally available year-round, hopefully producers in some other state (or Canada) WILL decide to make frozen cranberries available in supermarkets.-69.87.201.60 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands

The American cranberry is also grown on two dutch isles, Terschelling and Vlieland and is also found on the mainland, but only rarely though. It all started when a barrel of cranberries drifted ashore at Terschelling in 1840 (romantic isn't it). Might be nice to mention. Check dutch cranberry wiki if you know any dutch ;) 86.87.75.160 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pricing

United States -- Cents per pound -- Table 6--Cranberries: Total production and season-average prices received by growers[2]

• 2002 32.2
• 2003 33.9
• 2004 34.7

MASSACHUSETTS CRANBERRIES: Acres, Yield, Production, Utilization, Price and Value, 2002 – 2006[3]
Price Per Barrel

• Fresh - Processed - All
• 2002 50.30 30.70 32.80
• 2003 56.30 32.30 34.10
• 2004 54.80 30.60 32.60
• 2005 55.90 32.90 34.90
• 2006 57.20 35.00 36.80

-69.87.200.184 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

juice unsweetened

Some people like (or at least don't mind) the taste of pure, unsweetened cranberries. Pure juice is hard to find, but at least available at health food stores, in the US. It is usually quite bitter. But the bottle just bought at Trader Joes in Massachusetts, "not from concentrate", seems to not be as bitter as usual. Why? Is "not from concentrate" generally less bitter? Or, maybe it is more variable in taste?-69.87.201.60 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I'm drinking that same stuff right now! I love how it tastes. Cazort 23:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Health Benefits

The last blip on the radar says that "Cranberry juice also supposedly prevents the formation of kidney stones." You cannot use the word supposedly in an article. It either does or doesn't. Aspirin supposedly helps with headaches...NO - it DOES. Anyway...this 'fact' is bogus. They exert no effect in the kidney. They do not increase urine flow. I've not heard this in any herbal class I've ever taken. The only hypothetical that I can even fathom is that cranberries contain hippuric acid. This COULD lower the pH of the urine and prevent the formation of struvite stones. But, I doubt this hypothetical would have enough gusto due to the fact that hippuric acid is not a strong acid by any means and would be virtually ineffective if diluted - which it would in stones (the person would be POUNDING water I'd hope anyway) [[TheAngriestPharmacist]] 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Any similar lack of authentication for the health claims for cranberries palliating urinary tract infections? Richard8081 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Upon re-reading the Health Benefits section for Cranberries I see the telltale "... may ..." word, evoking all the aspects of dubiousness TheAngriestPharmacist is angry about, supra. The moon may be made of green cheese. You get the idea. Richard8081 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this section contains techno-babble that is above the level of a general audience and that contributes no relevant or useful information to the article itself. Wikipedia is meant to be a general audience encyclopedia, not a specialized scientific reference. I am deleting the text from "A working hypothesis" up to "monosaccharides present in the cranberry". Such things would only be of interest to specialists engaging in research on the subject, especially given that it's only a working hypothesis. If we want more detail I think we should add it in gradually and ensure that it is more accessible and relevant to the article itself. Plus, it's uncited--anything that technical absolutely needs to be cited! Cazort 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The health benefits section of the cranberries article wants pruning. Richard8081 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Excessive cranberry juice drinking will cause bruising as I mentioned in my edit. It has been in both creditable sources and herbal mags (guh) and goes to logic. A remedy or juice that reduces clotting and cannot be mixed with blood thinners will cause bruising if one ingest too much. If you consult the courier journal (the louisville (ky newspaper)) or cranberry herbal suppliers sites (although I'd rather put stock in a newspaper or university publishing) http://patients.uptodate.com/abstract.asp?TR=blod_dis/6066&viewAbs=2&title=2 Here it says 8 oz a day is ok on warfarin, but it doesn't talk about the concentration. The article I read recommened 4 oz a day for women who bruise easily. I am reinserting the clause about excessive cranberry juice. And will accept comments. eximo 06:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has completely misunderstood the article linked by source 13. The phrasing of the source article states that it is uncertain whether polyphenols and flavonoids account for the benefits of diets rich in plant-derived foods. However, the wikipedia article makes it seem like the health benefits of primarily plant-based diets themselves are uncertain, which, of course, they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.92.249 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I pasted your explanation of the source into the wikipedia article. Thanks! In the future, you are welcome to edit the article yourself...wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. DMacks (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reflex

Would it be possible to explain the reflexed shape of the petal or at least link to another article that discusses the aforementioned? Sochwa 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How many chromosomes in Cranberry cells?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.163.55 (talk) 04:47, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Plaigerism?

"About 95% of cranberries are processed into products such as juice drinks, sauce, and sweetened dried cranberries. The remaining 5% is sold fresh to consumers." this is almost the exact same wording (if not the exact) as used by Mike Rowe on a 'Dirty Jobs' episode on cranberries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.190.155 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and where do you suppose he got his information? He copied us, not the other way around. Regardless, the information is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.238.119 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What percentage of the production goes into items such as suppliments?22:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthosocialization (talk • contribs)

"domestic honey bees"

From the second paragraph of the introduction:

"They are pollinated by domestic honey bees."

As it stands, this statement is nonsensical as the article is talking about pollination in the U.S., and there is no such thing as a domestic U.S. honey bee.

Options for what could be meant by this statement:

1) They are pollinated by domesticated, therefore European honey bees. 2) They are pollinated by native bees.

As the cranberry requires mass pollination in a short time span, I would presume that European honey bees are main pollinator, but I am no cranberry expert. If this is the case, I would suggest the phrase "They are pollinated by European honey bees," as this is clear and concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.133.5 (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that "domestic honey bees" is not referring to the nation of origin of the bees, and instead says that the bees are 'kept' rather than wild.

Cranhandler (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Marshberry

It seems that in Newfoundland V. oxycoccus is called "marshberry". Yet sometimes "cranberry" and "marshberry" are mentioned as different (e.g., both named in a same list). Would anybody know if they are different or just different names for the same berry? Nagare (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Native Naming

The article says Native Americans used the term "Sassamanash." A clear generalization since the Natives were not a cohesive group with a single language and so doubtfully had the same word for Cranberries. Some more details such as which Native groups or what regions were the Cranberries cultivated or gathered and what language is Sassamanash from should be included. --99.232.53.33 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I think there should be a close-up photo of the actual fruits somewhere (in the “food” section, probably). That’s how most people will encounter the plant, not as a bush.

Why are overripe cranberries red under a black light?

I use to work at Ocean Spray and we had to seperate the cranberries under a black light? I was wondering why they turned red. Nobody knew why they just knew that they did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.176.45 (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oxycoccos / Oxycoccus and oxycoccos / oxycoccus spelling chaos

Somebody who's an expert should please fix the current spelling chaos in WP and please explain it in the articles, at least with a footnote. Britannica has "Vaccinium oxycoccus", which is why i changed oxycoccos to oxycoccus in Vaccinium. Then i found "*Vaccinium oxycoccos L., Sp. Pl. 1: 351. 1753 (originally spelled oxycoccus). *Oxycoccus oxycoccos " on http://nymf.bbg.org/profile_species_tech.asp?id=412. I was in the process of fixing cranberry accordingly and adding the explanation "spelled with the ending -us in the genus Oxycoccus but "spelled with the ending -os in the species names ending oxycoccos" when i stopped because i didn't know what to do with sect. and subgenus names. --Espoo (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Found answer here: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?18661 --Espoo (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this arises because as I understand it for plants you cannot have genus (and presumably also not subgenus) and species names the same. (You can in animals: Lutra lutra, Troglodytes troglodytes, Buteo buteo etc.) Presumably it was therefore Oxycoccus oxycoccos. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from article: Review articles on possible health benefits

• Bonifait, L. / Grenier, D. “Cranberry polyphenols: potential benefits for dental caries and periodontal disease”, J. Can. Dent. Assoc. (2010),76:a130.
• Jepson, R.G. / Craig, J.C. “Cranberries for preventing urinary tract infections”, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2009), October.
• Jepson, R.G. et al. ”Cranberries for treating urinary tract infections”, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2010), July.
• Paredes-López, O. et al. ”Berries: improving human health and healthy aging, and promoting quality life – a review”, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition (2010),65(3):299-308.

There's not much here. The third found no research to summarize! The others might have material not already in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to Talk. As you probably are aware of, the Cochrane Library is the world’s leading producer of systematic reviews in evidence-based medicine. A person with an urinary tract infection (UTI) would like to know if Cranberries can be of any help? In the Cochrane Review from October 2009, we can read that:

“This review identified 10 studies (1049 participants) comparing cranberry products with placebo, juice or water. There was some evidence to show that cranberries (juice and capsules) can prevent recurrent infections in women.”

This provisional conclusion unfortunately arrives to late for our patient, whom I suspect never again will skip her daily dose of Cranberries. He or she might then think: could the small berries also treat my painful infection? In the second Cochrane Review from July 2010, we can read that:

“Therefore, at the present time, there is no good quality evidence to suggest that it is effective for the treatment of UTIs.”

You are quite right in pointing out that this review found that no studies fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria, and this is welcome news for our patient; he or she can now take action and – with scientific certainty – consult the doctor. At least for the time being. The Cochrane Review mentions that two studies currently are being undertaken, and that more studies are needed.

A recent study (2011) from the Netherlands found that more than 85% of the E. colis developed antibiotic resistance, whereas resistance during cranberry treatment was less than 30%. This was a double-blind, double-dummy noninferiority trial, with 221 premenopausal women. The invited commentary by Bill J. Burley (Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences) is written in plain English.

It is my opinion that the Wikipedia entry on Cranberry will fare better with these four reviews included in the “further reading” – section. My reasons for including them are twofold. They can help interested readers learn more about the article subject WP:LAY (“Manual of Style/Layout”), and they can serve as a catalyst and a resource material for editors and contributors who would like to improve upon the subject, so that Wikipedia becomes an even better Encyclopedia.

I also added three book titles to the “further reading” – section. One of them was: Terry, Leon A. (2011, editor). Health-promoting Properties of Fruit and Vegetables. CABI. ISBN 9781845935283, which was (quickly) removed. This academic work reviews empirical data on health-promoting properties, and chapter four: Blueberry and Cranberry.

When I read the edit summary for this removal: “recentism and overly specific” (WP:RECENT), I immediately started to think about the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the first single cell prokaryotes on Earth approx. 3.8 Ga, and I started to think about Homo sapiens (200.000 ka).

This book is meant to be specific because it evaluate empirical data regarding health effects of fruit and vegetables. This book is also meant to be recent (after all, it was published in October 2011). It is a scholarly work that reflect the latest research going on in the field.

When is something no longer “recentism”? Are we talking about the ancient Greek philosophers? The monks in the Middle Ages? The thinkers of the Enlightenment? Voltaire? The Universal Exposition of 1889 in Paris?

A short while ago, I noted that the reader of the Pomegranate was offered to learn more about the subject with the help of “The Classic Encyclopedia” (11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, pub. 1911). I never suspected that the doctrine of “recentism” could be behind. Just as I tried to supplement the 1911 article with a review from the recent year 2010, it disappeared. “Die Eule der Minerva beginnt erst mit der einbrechenden Dämmerung ihren Flug” (The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk). Granateple (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if you focused on brief replies referencing the relevant policies and guidelines.

This article is about cranberries. Giving undue weight to health aspects is inappropriate. WP:MEDRS covers more on what type of sources to use and how to use them when it comes to medical information.

WP:FURTHER covers what belongs in Further reading sections. While there's some latitude on what belongs there versus in the External links section, WP:EL still applies.

I see that there have been other discussions on this same matter at Talk:Pomegranate. Are there more? Seems like these concerns have already been brought up, and ignored...

Seems like the arguments offered are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a soapbox, nor a place to right great wrongs. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

I have added the three scholarly reviews to the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section WP:FURTHER recommend using “publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject” (end of quote). The content guideline “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS recommend using “literature reviews or systematic reviews” (end of quote) as first choice.

If these scientific reviews could inspire other contributors to make the Cranberry – article even better, that would be great, but a complete incorporation of the reviews would be a violation of Wikipedia policy: “What Wikipedia is not” (WP:NOT). “Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal” (end of quote).

The “further reading” – section is meant for those wishing to dig deeper into the subject. If you are in doubt about this, I will again quote the sentence for you: “An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject.” (WP:FURTHER). Some very good articles offer this “further reading” – section to its readers, including the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. If you disagree with this Wikipedia guideline, I suggest you start working towards changing it (Wikipedia policy on Consensus, WP:CON).

The reviews deals with the health effects (positive, neutral or negative) of consuming cranberries, and a growing body of scientific and clinical evidence suggests that the positive health effects far outweighs any negatives one. That’s why your removal of these reviews – as I see it – violates Wikipedia’s fundamental policy on the neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Both views, the majority and the minority, must and shall have its say.

On December 15, 2011, you removed the “further reading” – section from several of the articles I have worked on: Pomegranate juice, Purple mangosteen, Fruit, Health effects of chocolate, Raspberry, Garden strawberry and Cranberry.

As I perceive it, the crux of the matter is this: Since cranberries are consumed, the question of health effects is part and parcel of a description of the Cranberry. By censoring out these reviews, it is my opinion that you do the interested reader a disfavor, and I find it ironic that you invoke the neutral point of view as the main argument. Instead of removing reports on positive health effects (researchers work and contribute), you should try to find evidence for any negative health effects. And nothing prevents you from adding publications to the further reading – section that does not focus on health aspects.

Anyone else with an opinion on this issue? Granateple (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

On your talk page I wrote, "it appears you've spent a great deal of time searching for potential references. That's extremely helpful work, but they should either be incorporated into the body of the article as references, or noted on the article talk pages so other editors could work on incorporating them."

I've also discussed the matter with another editor, who is also removing your edits, commenting "Also, I think it would be best if the material was moved to the talk page of each article. I've held off doing so in order not to split the discussion, but it was probably a bad decision on my part given the extent of the editing of this sort." --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I apologize for my late reply; I had to read your text with a magnifying glass. If you have responded to my arguments with invisible ink, please let me know. If not, please respond to the arguments. Granateple (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything to respond to at this point. The only real argument I see being offered is that an exception to NPOV needs to be made, but such arguments need to be based upon a good understanding of NPOV rather than cries of censorship. --Ronz (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that you are a NPOV magician. Please respond to the arguments. Granateple (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content and relevant policies/guidelines. Thanks!

If you believe I'm overlooking an important point, or you disagree with my summary, try a concise rephrasing of the points of disagreement.

I'm focusing at this time on NPOV, which is at the core of all my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that NPOV is at the core of all your concerns. We all care about Wikipedia and the NPOV. The President of the United States of America, David Letterman and the King of Sweden do it too. Please respond to the arguments. Granateple (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion concise; some of us don't have time to read so much material. Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ronz: I must ask you to respond to my arguments and to substantiate your assertions.

I also refer to the Statement of principles by Jimbo Wales: “The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself.” (principle number 6). Perhaps this question is hovering in the background?

The World is larger than Wikipedia and its future success will (this is my opinion) depend on its ability to look outward and on its willingness to connect with the (text)resources in an interconnected World: “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Granateple (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of WikiProjects have been notified of this dispute: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology#Controversy_over_reviews Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Controversy_over_reviews Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Controversy_over_reviews Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Controversy_over_reviews --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary of input from the community:

On “Talk:WikiProject Medicine” User:Jmh649 (aka Doc James), User:Jdfwolff (aka JFW) and User:Casliber are of the opinion that the content of reviews should be used as references / integrated into the article. User:WhatamIdoing thinks that there are times when it is just fine to list a surplus review in the “further reading” – section.

On “Talk:WikiProject Plants” User:Nadiatalent thinks that the best solution for now is that these recent, authoritative reviews could be integrated into the articles. User:EncycloPetey suggests that the ‘health effects” – section also can be splitt off into a new article (if the body of literature is large), and that we leave only a summary in the main entry.

On the Pomegranate talkpage User:Sasata thinks that these secondary reviews (and other) should be used in the article. Granateple (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"preliminary" research

Zefr renamed a few sections, which I find OK, they were far from perfect. However, what justifies calling some research results "preliminary"? Is there a Wikipedia policy what published research should be considered "preliminary"? Are the other research results believed to be more established? Why? --Gaborgulya (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor error in History section

In the section titled "History", in the last paragraph from the end, I believe there is a computational error in the prices per kilogram for cranberries. The article states that cranberry prices peaked at $65.00 per barrel (with a barrel described as 100 pounds or 45.5 kilograms), or $0.29/kg. Using the figures above for value and weight, this should be approximately $1.43 (rounded from $1.4317). The same error occurs in the 1996 price breakdown of $18.00/barrel, stated as $0.082/kg; this should be approximately $0.40/kg (rounded from $0.3964). --69.181.15.158 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange grammar in "Food Uses" section

"Cranberry juice is a major use of cranberries; it is usually either sweetened to make "cranberry juice cocktail" or blended with other fruit juices to reduce its natural severe tartness."

The bold section should be either :-

to make a "cranberry juice cocktail"

or  :-

to make "cranberry juice cocktails"

I think the latter is more correct. 80.42.107.71 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is correct as it is, originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.228.129 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Which SPECIES of Vaccinium is used for commercial cranberry production?

Which SPECIES of Vaccinium is used for commercial cranberry production? philiptdotcom (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Common Cranbery vs Small Cranbery

Inconsistent naming?

Wikipedia says:

 Vaccinium oxycoccos or Oxycoccus palustris (Common Cranberry or Northern Cranberry)
 Vaccinium microcarpum or Oxycoccus microcarpus (Small Cranberry)

Src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cranberry/Archive_1#Oxycoccos_.2F_Oxycoccus_and_oxycoccos_.2F_oxycoccus_spelling_chaos Links to: http://nymf.bbg.org/profile_species_tech.asp?id=412 States that Vaccinium Oxycoccus is a Small Cranberry.

In Dutch (Language of the Netherlands) it's called a "Kleine Veenbes" (Small Cranberry). Which is a Vaccinium oxycoccos, syn: Oxycoccus palustris. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleine_veenbes

And in German (Germany/Deutschland): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gew%C3%B6hnliche_Moosbeere

All other references I can find, match with that information. For example the NDFF data / namings, and that information should be correct. It's correctly named a Small Cranberry on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccinium_oxycoccos

Just some inconsistent naming. I'll just change the page, in the hope that it's the correct way. The only problem is, I have no idea what 'name' should be used for Vaccinium microcarpum. It's not the Small Cranberry. If I'll compare it with the map in the "Species and description" section. Maybe that Microcarpum should be named the Northern Cranberry? The Orange zone is outside the Netherlands. Can't find any data about Vaccinium Microcarpum in the NDFF database, so it's by definition the orange one (The story goes, that the Large Cranberry arrived in a barrel after a storm, see the Dutch wikipedia, early cultivation since 18xx oid).

3rd edit. changed the map. incorrect 'human names' where driving me crazy! Two are the SMALL cranberry. Great language/translation issues here! From:

 [ [File:Cranberrymap.jpg|thumb|250px|Approximate ranges of the cranberries in sect. Oxycoccus: Red: Common Cranberry. Orange: Small Cranberry. Green: American Cranberry. ]]

To:

 [ [File:Cranberrymap.jpg|thumb|250px|Approximate ranges of the cranberries in sect. Oxycoccus. Red: Vaccinium oxycoccos. Orange: Vaccinium microcarpum. Green: Vaccinium macrocarpon. ]]

And changed/removed a few names. Because Vaccinium Oxycoccus is the Small Cranberry. Edited it for the 4th time...

Reference: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moosbeeren

 Gewöhnliche Moosbeere (Cranberry) (Vaccinium oxycoccos) => Common Cranberry
 Großfrüchtige Moosbeere (Vaccinium macrocarpon) => Big Cranberry
 Kleinfrüchtige Moosbeere (Vaccinium microcarpum) => Small Cranberry

The page of Vaccinium oxycoccos English, states a Common Cranberry and Small Cranberry (in The Netherlands we don't have Micro, so Oxycoccos is 'Small'). I'll suggest to leave it out the legend of the image, use full/real names. But no overlapping naming with 'sizes'...

After getting some sleep:

 removed @ oxycoccos:  and Small Cranberry
 removed @ macrocarpon: , Bearberry

The name Bearberry matches Marocarpon and Erythrocarpum?! Ah, the map is only 'Subgenus Oxycoccus, sect. Oxycoccus'. So Green can't be Erythrocarpum. Guess this is my last change!

How to solve correctly? Sorry for making this mess (I'm just someone seing inconsistent data, not an plant expert). I'll think it's better. Hope others do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:58:5:3332:223:42ff:fe85:3228 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody cares what it's called in other languages... Correctron (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The English names used for plants are often quite inconsistent, with the same name used for different plants, different names used in different countries, etc. No attempt should be made to impose consistency; rather every English name that is used in reliable sources should be listed. A regular problem in plant articles is that the English names aren't sourced, and they should be. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)