From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved from article: Review articles on possible health benefits[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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). -- (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange grammar in "Food Uses" section[edit]

"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.

It is correct as it is, originally.

Strange grammar in "Food Uses" section[edit]

"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. (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Which SPECIES of Vaccinium is used for commercial cranberry production?[edit]

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

Common Cranbery vs Small Cranbery[edit]

Inconsistent naming?

Wikipedia says:

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

Src: Links to: 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.

And in German (Germany/Deutschland):

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

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. ]]


 [ [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...


 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!

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)

Explanation please[edit]

Under Cultivation - Geography and bog method it states "Beds are frequently drained with socked tile...". As I can't find any explanation of this in Wikipedia, could someone add a few words to explain what socked tile is, please.

I have a similar query for the reference to the "water reel type harvesters" in the Harvesting section. (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Moriarty

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cranberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Urinary tract infections[edit]

Dear Community, Since the content of the section „Urinary tract infections“ is not up to date I would like suggest some improvement. Please include the results found by Kevin C Maki, Kerrie L Kaspar,Christina Khoo,Linda H Derrig, Arianne L Schild, and Kalpana Gupta “Consumption of a cranberry juice beverage lowered the number of clinical urinary tract infection episodes in women with a recent history” Am J Clin Nutr 2016;103:1434–42. Unfortunately I am not familiar with editing the article and therefore I would be very happy if someone else might add this additional note + reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a limited clinical study paid for and conducted by Ocean Spray, so is WP:COI. References 16 and 17 have taken a wider view of all clinical studies to date on UTI, and concluded there is no effect. This is what the article states and should remain. --Zefr (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Reference 16 (EFSA review of CranMax, in case numbering changes in future) was a not-enough-evidence finding on the proposed health claim for a specific dietary supplement, and should be identified as such rather than used as a generalized no-benefits reference. Ref 17 (Cochrane) is a high quality review reference of multiple types of cranberry products, and as of April 2017, is still the most recent meta-analysis. David notMD (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)