Talk:Blueberry/Archive 1

Perhaps other blueberries native to the Americas such as Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), Vaccinium constablaei, Darrow's Evergreen Blueberry, Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), Rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei), Lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) should be mentioned? The article mentions US blueberries, but doesn't specify the species. // Liftarn

Where do blueberries grow? Temperate zones? Subarctic? When is blueberrry season?

Different species from subarctic to warm temperate North America - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about the european blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus)?

That's called Bilberry - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added some info on species (and probably will do some more later). I am unfamiliar with Darrow's. Somebody else will have to do European blueberries.... Pollinator 13:27, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No European species are called "blueberry" - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aren't blueberry and Vaccinium the same articles? Especially the swedish link may be wrong! 82.82.127.8 23:04, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia would standardize on using the scientific names of plant species, with redirects from the common names. But it seems that a lot, probaby the majority, use the common names as the main page, so it's a hodgepodge right now. What Swedish link? Pollinator 19:07, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The swedish link is on blueberry. No, Vaccinium and blueberry are not the same. Vaccinium includes many species which would never be called blueberry (such as the cranberry). Certainly settling on scientific names would be good, although redirects would not solve all the problems either. A combination of redirects and slightly enlarged disambiguation pages would probably do it. WormRunner 18:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm thick here, but I still don't "get" the "swedish connection." The info is mostly about North America. I wish there were more info on Wikipedia on this and other crops from elsewhere in the world. Pollinator 19:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:82.82.127.8 seems to have been talking about the "Other languages: Svenska" link to Vaccinium myrtilus, but as far as I can see, that seems to be a decent link for blueberry and not for Vaccinium. I agree about the non-american crops! WormRunner 19:46, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have done a fair bit of editing on blueberry, cranberry and cowberry - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No blueberries in Europe?

So we don't have blueberries in Europe? What should we call them then? They sure are blue. Brutulf 15:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

you can grow blueberries in many parts of Europe, but the native species of blue berries are bilberries so far as I know. seglea 21:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

what is the chemical formula of blueberries?

Martian blueberries are made of hematite, chemical formula Fe₂O₃ technopilgrim 01:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any plant or animal is composed of thousands (or millions) of different chemicals, and we can't possibly give the formula for all of them here. The formula is often not sufficient, either. For exampe fructose (the sugar in blueberries and many other fruits) has the same chemical formula as glucose (C6H12O6), but the atoms are arranged slightly differently. StuRat 14:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

anti cancer berries

i have read that blueberries are good at detoxifying people, and i have read tat they are good anti carcenegens. can anyone confirm this? Khulhy 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The only confirmed benefit I know of is the anti-oxidants, which prevent the cellular damage associated with aging. As far as other benefits, they may well be by "replacement". That is, you will be less likely to get sick if you eat lots of blueberries instead of chili-cheese fries, not because the blueberries cure disease, but because the chili-cheese fries cause disease. StuRat 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

why was my link removed

Just wanted to know why the link that I placed on this page to Stone Hill Blueberry Farm was removed. This site is an informational site about a Blueberry Farm in New York and has no shopping cart.

Thanks

I removed it because it is a page promoting a specific blueberry farm. The whole front page promotes the farm as a business and a lot of the links do too. If a link to this page is allowed then we will end up with links to every blueberry farm with a page or two providing blueberry information. --Beirne 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats fair enough I can except that. I have to question why a link to the Michigan Blueberry Growers Association is allowed to stay though. It's home page includes a link in its main navigation to the blueberry store .com which is an online store. Both sites happen to be owned by the same company according to whosis. Seems like that is promoting an online store.

Thanks for letting me know why it was pulled off.

Well, any web site will eventually lead to an ad somewhere. I suppose the standard used here is that the page itself can't be an ad, but any links leading to an add can be permitted, as long as the page itself has useful info. StuRat 13:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the standard from the "What should not be linked to" section of the Wikipedia:External links page: Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above. --Beirne 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the Michigan page. I removed its link, too. --Beirne 16:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link to the external linking rules--I had not seen that although I did look at the policies I guess I did not did deep enough. Just want to bring up a couple points.

1. I cringe when I see where I wrote except instead of accept. 2. Although I can certainly see where others would look at the site I posted as "just and ad" I don't look at it that way. This is a site that I have worked on for over 4 years, I have never made a penny on it, and don't plan to in the future. It truly was designed as a favor to the owners. The only way the owners can ever make a penny off this site is if someone sees it and decides to come pick berries. The chances of that happening are pretty slim. Which brings me to.... 3. Now I see how wrong this link was. Links on here need to be something that is of use to anyone who visits, not just people in a certain area. I have learned from my mistake. 4. Finally, I want you to know that I posted in good faith--it was not an attempt to mess up Wikipedia. I thought the site was a good addition to the page--I was wrong. Thank you for your time

Growth

Where do blueberries grow? Temperate zones? Subarctic? When is blueberrry season?

Different species from subarctic to warm temperate North America - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about the european blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus)?

That's called Bilberry - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added some info on species (and probably will do some more later). I am unfamiliar with Darrow's. Somebody else will have to do European blueberries.... Pollinator 13:27, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No European species are called "blueberry" - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aren't blueberry and Vaccinium the same articles? Especially the swedish link may be wrong! 82.82.127.8 23:04, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia would standardize on using the scientific names of plant species, with redirects from the common names. But it seems that a lot, probaby the majority, use the common names as the main page, so it's a hodgepodge right now. What Swedish link? Pollinator 19:07, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The swedish link is on blueberry. No, Vaccinium and blueberry are not the same. Vaccinium includes many species which would never be called blueberry (such as the cranberry). Certainly settling on scientific names would be good, although redirects would not solve all the problems either. A combination of redirects and slightly enlarged disambiguation pages would probably do it. WormRunner 18:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm thick here, but I still don't "get" the "swedish connection." The info is mostly about North America. I wish there were more info on Wikipedia on this and other crops from elsewhere in the world. Pollinator 19:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:82.82.127.8 seems to have been talking about the "Other languages: Svenska" link to Vaccinium myrtilus, but as far as I can see, that seems to be a decent link for blueberry and not for Vaccinium. I agree about the non-american crops! WormRunner 19:46, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have done a fair bit of editing on blueberry, cranberry and cowberry - MPF 01:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the best book to purchase that explains how to grow 1/2 acre of bluberries?

I read that Blueberry bushes like Acidic and sandy soil... Could someone elaborate on that? How acidic is best? (what PH?) And is sand really necessary, or is it a question of drainage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.205.186 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No blueberries in Europe?

So we don't have blueberries in Europe? What should we call them then? They sure are blue. Brutulf 15:20, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

you can grow blueberries in many parts of Europe, but the native species of blue berries are bilberries so far as I know. seglea 21:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

an anon has again added Scandinavia to the list of places where blueberries are native. In view of the discussion above (in the Growth section) I have deleted this but I don't have authoritative sources. The article seems to have settled down to considering one section of the genus and it should be reasonably clear whether any members of this section are found in Europe - can anyone sort it out? seglea 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct that no species of Vaccinium sect. Cyanococcus are native to Europe. The species with 'blueberry' in their English names all (fortuitously!) happen to be classified in this section. The European native species of Vaccinium are in other sections of the genus. The problem lies in that European native Vaccinium myrtillus (Bilberry in English; in Vaccinium sect. Myrtillus) happens to have the common name "Blåbär" (translates as 'blueberry') in Swedish, which leads to confusion between the two sections - MPF 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, MPF. I hadn't seen the more extended discussion below. I suspect this error will keep repeating itself. I'll try to add something to the page to head it off, though I doubt whether it will work 100%. seglea 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The photo on this page labelled Wild blueberries collected in Norway actually depicts bilberries rather than blueberries. If you look at another picture by the same photographer, you can see that these berries were growing singly on a stem rather than clustered like American blueberries. The Norwegian name Blåbær causes the same confusion as the Swedish name.

This whole discussion is moot. It's based on a false conception that you can categorize plants by their common name, which is false. Every one of the species listed as blueberries in this article are separate species, and cannot be classified by their shared common name. Whether or not Europeans call their blue berries "blueberries", "small nuts" or "yummy" doesn't matter. The article should be rewritten to more closely reflect the distinction of the species by scientific name rather than by common name. That is, the article about blueberries should discuss the plants that are called blueberries even outside of the US. If there should be an article about the section of the genus found in North America, that's material for a subsection or another article. Otherwise this becomes an American article (this is how it is in the US. deal with it, world!) Before I sit down and undertake any such rewriting-task, I want to know that it won't be reverted immediately by some miss-informed editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da'covale (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

what is the chemical formula of blueberries?

Martian blueberries are made of hematite, chemical formula Fe₂O₃ technopilgrim 01:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any plant or animal is composed of thousands (or millions) of different chemicals, and we can't possibly give the formula for all of them here. The formula is often not sufficient, either. For exampe fructose (the sugar in blueberries and many other fruits) has the same chemical formula as glucose (C6H12O6), but the atoms are arranged slightly differently. StuRat 14:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

anti cancer berries

i have read that blueberries are good at detoxifying people, and i have read tat they are good anti carcenegens. can anyone confirm this? Khulhy 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The only confirmed benefit I know of is the anti-oxidants, which prevent the cellular damage associated with aging. As far as other benefits, they may well be by "replacement". That is, you will be less likely to get sick if you eat lots of blueberries instead of chili-cheese fries, not because the blueberries cure disease, but because the chili-cheese fries cause disease. StuRat 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

why was my link removed

Just wanted to know why the link that I placed on this page to Stone Hill Blueberry Farm was removed. This site is an informational site about a Blueberry Farm in New York and has no shopping cart.

Thanks

I removed it because it is a page promoting a specific blueberry farm. The whole front page promotes the farm as a business and a lot of the links do too. If a link to this page is allowed then we will end up with links to every blueberry farm with a page or two providing blueberry information. --Beirne 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats fair enough I can except that. I have to question why a link to the Michigan Blueberry Growers Association is allowed to stay though. It's home page includes a link in its main navigation to the blueberry store .com which is an online store. Both sites happen to be owned by the same company according to whosis. Seems like that is promoting an online store.

Thanks for letting me know why it was pulled off.

Well, any web site will eventually lead to an ad somewhere. I suppose the standard used here is that the page itself can't be an ad, but any links leading to an add can be permitted, as long as the page itself has useful info. StuRat 13:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the standard from the "What should not be linked to" section of the Wikipedia:External links page: Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above. --Beirne 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the Michigan page. I removed its link, too. --Beirne 16:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link to the external linking rules--I had not seen that although I did look at the policies I guess I did not did deep enough. Just want to bring up a couple points.

1. I cringe when I see where I wrote except instead of accept. 2. Although I can certainly see where others would look at the site I posted as "just and ad" I don't look at it that way. This is a site that I have worked on for over 4 years, I have never made a penny on it, and don't plan to in the future. It truly was designed as a favor to the owners. The only way the owners can ever make a penny off this site is if someone sees it and decides to come pick berries. The chances of that happening are pretty slim. Which brings me to.... 3. Now I see how wrong this link was. Links on here need to be something that is of use to anyone who visits, not just people in a certain area. I have learned from my mistake. 4. Finally, I want you to know that I posted in good faith--it was not an attempt to mess up Wikipedia. I thought the site was a good addition to the page--I was wrong. Thank you for your time.

Collaboration

Myself and User:Hollow Wilerding have recently come to the conclusion of editing the blueberry article and promoting it to featured article status. The talk page has been cleaned for the upcoming collaboration, which will begin within the next month. If you would like to contribute to the collaboration, feel free to edit the article. --DrippingInk 01:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Two signatures have been endorsed. The collaboration will begin shortly. —Hollow Wilerding 02:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do blueberries grow in Europe? According to one source, they have to be taken to the continent from a different part of the world. I feel rather skeptical about this, though I could be wrong. --DrippingInk 00:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, blueberries grow in Europe. Basically, the most deliciuos blueberries can be found in the Alps (Austria, Switzerland) they juice and the fruit flesh inside the berries is totally red and black. I have not found these type of blueberries in the supermarkets in the USA so far. It s a different breed and tastes totally different. In Austria its calles "Schwarz Beere" (= Black Berries) because the pulp is black and red inside.(pat)

I'm uncertain myself, DrippingInk. We'll debate more on this topic when the collaboration begins in a few weeks. —Hollow Wilerding 21:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Species of Vaccinium are native in Europe (and Asia), but the name 'blueberry' is not used for them in UK English, they are given other names like Bilberry and Whortleberry. A classic example of common names being a complete mess (and at risk of generating difficult POV-disputes). Related names are used in some other European languages, e.g. Scots Blaeberry and Swedish Blåbär both translate directly as blueberry, and are applied to the European species Vaccinium myrtillus. I think this is going to make any realistic raising of 'Blueberry' to a featured article very difficult if not impossible; the name is too loosely applied, not being a single species, nor being applied consistently in different countries. My own preference would be to deal with most of the botanical and cultivation information (where it applies to all species in the genus) at the genus page Vaccinium, and any remaining botanical info unique to particular species at individual species pages titled by their scientific names. Then the Blueberry page would be restricted to a page of culinary and social information (traditions, etc). - MPF 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not greatly optimistic about getting blueberry featured either, but I think there's some hope of detangling the blueberry mess in the blueberry page. Trying to lump common botanical and (especially) cultivation info into Vaccinium seems to fall on its face when you consider how different cranberry harvesting is from most of the other more blueberry-like species. I think we go ahead and include Vaccinium myrtillus in this article; everyhing I've seen seems to indicate it is similar enough in appearance and use, no? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The botanical info at Vaccinium certainly needs a lot of work (which I'll get down to soon), but it can (and should, unless the genus gets split up) all be on that page. Cultivation - that for cranberries is already on that page; for blueberries, that too differs from species to species (e.g. highbush and lowbush species differ in requirements), so that too should perhaps devolve to individual species pages. If Vaccinium myrtillus were included, it would introduce a US-POV out of keeping with wiki NPOV policy, as it isn't called a blueberry, so that would not work well. - MPF 12:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

... and if Vaccinium myrtillus isn't handled it introduces a US-POV for ignoring Europe's "blueberry". A cunning trap set for us indeed. Perhaps this article could focus more on the culinary properties of those species commonly called "blueberries" and thereby avoid some of the cultivation and botanical issues? I know, I know, then it won't be comprehensive. Hmph. (Postscript: wait, I see that's what you already pretty much suggested, MPF. I guess I'm in agreement.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've got the Vaccinium page sorted a bit from the USDA genetics resources page, tho' haven't been able to find any info on how the different sections are related to each other. But all the species called 'blueberry' do cluster in one section (sect. Cyanococcus, which, BTW, is Greek for guess what!), which does give better options on making 'blueberry' a valid botanical grouping as well as a cultural etc page. It does make the options for getting the page to featured quality a lot better - MPF 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Got the botanical side here sorted in more detail now. - MPF 18:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We're working hard, I see. So will it be impossible to upgrade blueberry to the featured article level? If the task is too difficult, I could move the collaboration to something within a simpler range. (Although I'm a bit skeptical on the fact that blueberry can't become featured.) —Hollow Wilerding 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Due to the large percentage of Wikipedians who believe that blueberry is too specific of a topic to edit, the collaboartion will be moving to garlic. Thank you for understanding. —Hollow Wilerding 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Query

If I am wanting the best book available on the market that teaches the basics of Blueberry growing techniques in Texas what book should I buy? Also since I have 2 acres to dedicate to growing them should I find a buyer first? Your help is greatly appreciated. (I have a green thumb and have several years to kill so I think I will tincker with blueberries; please send your un biased thoughts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.181.127 (talk • contribs)

Contact your state agricultural extension service, they should be able to advise. It will only be successful if you have acidic soil. - MPF 14:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

21 g of Vitamin C?

140 grams of fresh blueberries contain 3 g of fibre and 21 g of Vitamin C.[1]

I simply cannot believe it. -- Toytoy 14:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This nutritiondata web page supports the high vitamin C concentration - MPF 10:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's how much of the %DV daily value you're looking at you silly. :P It says right on that page 14.4mg per 148grams. I mean honestly 21grams of Vitamin C... please.

Not a "false berry"

As part of a project I've been doing now for a few hours, I am changing "false berry" to "true berry". I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "false berry", botanically. But if there is, the blueberry isn't one of them: see pa4h.cas.psu.edu/Projects/HortJudging/ILFruitsNuts.pdf , which I consider reliable since it's from Penn State University. More authoritative sources were hard to find, but this should be more authoritative than the resources & external links currently listed on this article. Bvbacon 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nutritional Chart

I can't find a nutritional chart any where on the web about blueberries not even on this </http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/> website. I think every page on a certain food should have a nutritional chart like the wolfberry page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.60.59.249 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

World's Healthiest Foods has a good nutrient profile for blueberries[2] and the US Highbush Blueberry Council reports this one[3] from the USDA National Nutrient Database, 2006.

There's also this summary containing nutrient, antioxidant and health research information from The Berry Doctor[4] who recently published a newsletter honoring National Blueberry Month (July) in the USA and Canada.

--Paul144 14:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Blueberry's Blue Colour

I worked with a cook that told me that the blueberry is the only "true" "blue" food out there. That is any other fruit or vegetable that looks blue is in fact purple or a dark colour that looks like blue. Anyone know if this is true? 24.83.178.11 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

I believe the Concord (grape) is also naturally blue. 96.27.38.63 (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blueberry Calcium/Boron Supplement

I read a couple of health magazines (the free ones whose articles are basically advertisements for the products they advertise) that state that the most absorbable form of calcium is the form extracted from blueberries. It is called calcium fructoborate. The magazines showed the monograms that "proved" that calcium fructoborate is more absorbable than all other forms in the supplemnt market. Since they had monograms, there must be a scientific study somewhere behind the monograms (hopefully). Is this worth mentioning in the article?24.83.178.11 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

Most Delicious Blueberry

I have read on a website that Vaccinium deliciosum (Cascade Bilberry) is the most delicious of bilberries because it is the only bilberry/blueberry to have ten flavor components. Apperently there is a research paper to back this up (the ten flavor component claim). Are there any objections to mentioning this in the article?

Since I have never ate them, I cannot attest to this claim. Maybe I can write "most flavorful" or "most complex/sophisticated flavor" as opposed to "most delicious".24.83.178.11 12:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

There is nothing at all wrong with reporting what some reliable source has written. If the research paper can be considered reliable, you can report whatever conclusions it came to. If there's any way to mention the authority of the paper -- if you can say whether or not it was written by someone particularly authoritative in the field or appeared in an authoritative publication, that's even better, but if it looks essentially reliable to you, please contribute the information, and if there's a problem with it, some editor will no doubt bring it up. And you don't have to tone down what that source says, so long as that source appears to be reliable. Please contribute it! Noroton 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blueberry clamshell.GIF

Image:Blueberry clamshell.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article states:

All species whose English common names include "blueberry" are currently classified in section Cyanococcus of the genus Vaccinium.

This appears to contradict bilberry, which lists "European blueberry" and "myrtle blueberry" as common names.

--Dforest (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Language section

I don't understand the point of the "Language" section in this article. All it does is list a bunch of words for blueberries in different languages. There are no complete sentences, capitalization, links, or further explanation. Perhaps the word for "blueberry" in other languages is interesting and relevant, but the current section is totally pointless. Unless someone can revise it--and make it relevant--I propose that it be deleted. --N-k, 04:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Information from german wikipedia

While the German wikipedia article on "Blueberries" (Heidelbeeren) was roughly the same size as this, I recently discovered that "Kulturheidelbeeren" (Roughly "Cultured blueberries") was featured. There's quite a bit of content there that interested editors could use to improve this article here on the english wikipedia. It doesn't appear that that exact article exists in any language other than German, so translation could be useful here. CCG _(T-C) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wild no more

WILD turns out to now be a marketing term that means "semi-wild", at best. See 26mar08 Boston Globe p.E5: -69.87.199.246 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dessert - Wild Maine Blueberries

'These are native stands of low-bush blueberries cannily managed by their keepers. Their very identity as "wild" was a deliberate decision, according to David Bell, executive director of the Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine, adopted to increase their appeal and sales. That doesn't mean it's a cheat. The bushes are wild "because we have not planted them or genetically improved them," not even by old-fashioned, pre-GMO plant breeding. (The high-bush blueberry is also native to Maine, but it is usually more intensely cultivated.) They are pruned or burned over every two years, for optimum fruiting. There is some pest management. The wild berries' smaller size, says Bell, means more intense flavor because there is a higher skin-to-pulp ratio, and the skin is where flavor is concentrated. And the plants' genetic diversity makes for a "medley of flavors" from tart to sweet.'[5]

Bilberry is not a blueberry

It seems to me that this article makes it clear that it is specifically about the section Cyanococcus of the genus Vaccinium, and therefore Vaccinium myrtillus, aka "bilberry" or "European blueberry" should not be included in the species list, since that species is not part of the section Cyanococcus. I am basing it on the text of the article in the section "Origins", and therefore am removing it. If anyone can find a source that puts V. myrtillus in the section Cyanococcus, please add it back and also edit the article.

Also the list of species belonging to the section Cyanococcus was originally posted by user MPF to this article and to the article about the genus Vaccinium way back in December 2005. Subsequently user LarryMorseDCOhio removed V. koreanum and V. myrsinites from the list and put them under a heading "Some other blue-fruited-species of Vaccinium" thereby implying that those two species are not part of the section Cyanococcus. However the original list as created by MPF remains unchanged in the article about the genus Vaccinium. So are those two species part of this section or not? Robert Dominik (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd Phrase?

Quote "Beginning in 2005, blueberries have been discussed among a category of functio.." what does this mean? zzapper (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Moot discussion (poor article name)

Almost a year ago the following was posted:

" This whole discussion is moot. It's based on a false conception that you can categorize plants by their common name, which is false. Every one of the species listed as blueberries in this article are separate species, and cannot be classified by their shared common name. Whether or not Europeans call their blue berries "blueberries", "small nuts" or "yummy" doesn't matter. The article should be rewritten to more closely reflect the distinction of the species by scientific name rather than by common name. That is, the article about blueberries should discuss the plants that are called blueberries even outside of the US. If there should be an article about the section of the genus found in North America, that's material for a subsection or another article. Otherwise this becomes an American article (this is how it is in the US. deal with it, world!) Before I sit down and undertake any such rewriting-task, I want to know that it won't be reverted immediately by some miss-informed editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da'covale (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "

Unfortunately this (IMHO) eminently reasonable suggestion has been ignored: If the article is to stay more or less as it is, it should be moved to "American blueberry", since, and I'm guessing here ;-), there were probably "blue berries" in Europe known as "Blueberries"/"Blaubeeren" etc long before some settlers without botanical knowledge found some berries in the woods of North America and called them (incorrectly, as is turns out) "blueberries". But rather than editors spawning a host of articles called "American blueberry", "German blueberry", "Norwegian blueberry" etc., Da'covale's idea should at least be considered. After all, this is an English language encyclopaedia for the whole world, not just for the U.S.A. How about it? --TraceyR (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely needs clarification. I have made some small edits in that direction. The attempt to define "true blueberries" as only Cyanococcus seems Yankee-centric if for no other reason than the high likelihood that "blueberry" was used as a British common name for European Vaccinium before the exploration of North America. In addition, the article acknowledges that "colloquial" usage sometimes includes huckleberries under the name blueberry - I am not sure there is a principled way to distinguish "common" names from "colloquial" names. Finally, the attempt to anchor "blueberry" to section cyanococcus by virtue of english common names is hampered by, for instance, "Creeping blueberry" which is a North American native Vaccinium that isn't listed as being part of the [section] while the non-North American Vaccinium koreanum is listed as a member of the section.

Kimcmich (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if in English, blueberry is the North American fruit, and Bilberry is the similar European fruit... I am confused as to the problem. Is the term "blueberry" widely used in British English used mean a fruit other than Cyanococcus?--Knulclunk (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This confusion shows exactly why the article needs to be amended. As the original poster said: "It's based on a false conception that you can categorize plants by their common name, which is false. Every one of the species listed as blueberries in this article are separate species, and cannot be classified by their shared common name."

The problem is further illustrated by the following from a Swedish blog:" Yes, it’s blueberry season! Actually, no. Wait! Technically, it’s “bilberry” in English, Vaccinium myrtillus in Latin, and simply “blåbär” in Swedish. What you guys know as a “blueberry” in the US is in fact Vaccinium cyanococcus, a not-so-distant cousin of the European variety."

At present the article claims that the fruit known in the USA as blueberry is the only true blueberry; this is not an encyclopedic approach. One way would be for commonly used names such as Blueberry, Bilberry, Myrtleberry, Whortleberry etc etc to lead to a disambiguation page for Blueberry with links to e.g.

1. Blueberry (North America) - Vaccinium cyanococcus
2. Blueberry (Sweden: Blåbär) - Vaccinium myrtillus
3. Blueberry (German: Blaubeere) - <wikilink to botanical name>

etc. Is this a viable approach? Or should the disambiguation actually take place in the article Vaccinium, to which all "common name" articles redirect, which could then link to the members of that genus, defined by their botanical name. At present the treatment of this area is a bit of a mess (and, by the way, demonstrates a major problem with the Wikipedia appoach: the difficulty of achieving an agreed, enforceable, co-ordinated approach to a subject). If there is a project group overseeing such articles there is ample scope for improvement. --TraceyR (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The common name is appropriate, unless there may be confusion. As far as I can see there are two distinct common names for two similar, but different fruit.

A literal translation of Blåbär may be "blue-berry" but the Swedish word defines the fruit Bilberry. 30 stub articles with scraps of overlapping information or no information at all, (like Vaccinium myrtillus) is worse than useless.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there obviously is confusion, something needs to be done. By all means use the common name(s) as an entry point, but the current article does not help to clarify things. The Swedish word no more 'defines' Bilberry than the USA-English word 'defines' Blueberry. To which fruit does the UK-English word "Blueberry" refer? Using the internationally recognised botanical names is the only way to avoid confusion. By the way, if Vaccinium myrtillus is not OK, it can be changed. Blueberry certainly needs to be changed too. It's simply not 'encyclopaedic' as it stands. --TraceyR (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not so much that the common name is inappropriate for the fruit - it's that the common name is used for more than this article claims even in "common" English usage. It is simply not the case that all the things an American English speaker might know as a "blueberry" are in section cyanococcus (huckleberry for instance). Likewise, not all the species in section cyanococcus are called "blueberries" unless the Japan/Korea-native specie also happens coincidentally to have that name. What I and the other commenters are objecting to is the attempt to anchor a common name - with no necessary diagnostic/systematic criteria - to an arbitrary list of species that is both over- and under-inclusive. That is the central problem with common names. For this article to be a trustworthy and at least somewhat authoritative reference, it needs to properly acknowledge the not-so-easily-defined nature of *all* the things that are called "blueberries." --Kimcmich (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the very reason for moving the emphasis away from common names. An article called "Blueberry" is always going to have this problem, whereas articles based on the botanical names can be definitive and unambiguous, i.e. encyclopaedic. By all means have articles which use the common names, but have them redirect to the appropriate (i.e. definitive, non-arbitrary) 'botanical' article. --TraceyR (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is converging on a proper compromise between the problemmatic USA & commercial produce centric article of before and the unwieldy option of having only species-specific pages with a disambiguation mediator. As long as an article called "Blueberry" does not attempt to create a dubious specification of what things are "true" or "proper" blueberries - and acknowledges the possible alternates - I think it can serve a useful purpose for readers. I suggest more edits to properly remove any attempts to talk about "true" blueberries or the former pervasive assumption of the article that "blueberries" are only North American species grown for their commercial produce. --Kimcmich (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some baked products incorporate artificial blueberries, which contain no actual blueberry.

That's pretty much the definition of artificial, god dammit!

I changed it to "Some baked products incorporate artificial blueberries."

You shouldn't use such language although I totally understand your frustration! ;) Anyways, I was wondering what is or what is in an artificial blueberry. Is it like a gummy candy or is it just blue food coloring and artificial flavor?24.83.178.11 11:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

Often an artificial blueberry is a cranberry with color and sugar and maybe some artificial flavors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.188.143 (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some of the single-serving "fruit pies" from national brands described as "blueberry" (or other fruit) flavors, and in the list of ingredients, we see apples, food coloring, and artificial fruit flavor. Coarsely chopped cooked apples can apparently be disguised more effectively than we knew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Total Blueberry Yield Chart

The units and scale for yield can't be correct. The dark green represents just over 1kg/ha production which equates to several cups of blueberries per hectare. According to a little research, yields are sometimes around 5 metric tons per hectare.

Unless the yield refers to the concentration of blueberry production is regards to location? it is still rather miss-leading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.34.194 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Insulin Sensitivity

Journal article in http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/10/1764 Journal of Nutrition, doi:10.3945/jn.110.125336 Vol. 140, No. 10, 1764-1768, October 2010 Bioactives in Blueberries Improve Insulin Sensitivity in Obese, Insulin-Resistant Men and Women —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.175.94 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Blueberry Pesticides

Catching the Toxic Drift: How Pesticides Used in the Blueberry Industry Threaten Our Communities, Our Water and the Environment (Environment Maine)

"Although blueberries in Maine grow wild, as their economic importance has increased, agricorporations have come to rely on toxic pesticides to increase production. Large-scale blueberry monoculture requires significant pest control measures to protect the commodity. The Maine Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) found that the blueberry industry used the following 15 trade-name pesticides (active ingredient in parenthesis):

• Benlate (Benomyl)—fungicide
• (Captan)—fungicide
• (Diazinon ag)—insecticide
• Elevate (Fenhexamid)—fungicide
• Funginex (Triforine)—fungicide
• Gramoxone (Paraquat)—herbicide [restricted use pesticide in Maine]
• Guthion (Azinphos-methyl)—insecticide [restricted use pesticide in Maine]
• Imidan (Phosmet)—insecticide
• Orbit (Propiconazole)—fungicide
• Poast (Sethoxydim)—herbicide
• Roundup (Glyphosate)—herbicide
• Select (Clethodim)—herbicide
• Sencor (Metribuzin)—herbicide
• Thiodan (Endosulfan)—insecticide [restricted use pesticide in Maine]
• Velpar (Hexazinone)—herbicide [restricted use pesticide in Maine]

In addition to these fifteen pesticides, the University of Maine Cooperative Extension, which acts as a resource for agriculture, recommends eleven additional pesticides as potential solutions to insects, weeds and diseases." [6] -96.237.11.173 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Blueberry Bloom

Would someone please add a section describing the makeup and function of the whitish bloom that coats ripe blueberries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radcen (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Chandler blueberry

I created the article Chandler blueberry. Any improvements would be welcome. Please see Talk:Chandler blueberry as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential references

From [7]. See discussion: --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Routray, W. / Orsat, V. “Blueberries and Their Anthocyanins: Factors Affecting Biosynthesis and Properties”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety (2011),10(6):303-320.
• Wood, M. “Blueberries and Your Health”, Agricultural Research Magazine (2011), May – June:9-13. (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture)

Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

These reviews are meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The reviews are placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The reviews in question (at least one of them) reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, they are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and they are published in academic journals. Granateple (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Title and possible splits

Recently, the Blueberry page was moved to its current title. The guy who moved it's rationale for the move was "That particular kind of plant is called blueberry in North America only, but nowhere else. In contrast, what is called also bilberry usually is referred to as blueberry. However, that fact was impossible to find out from the article about North American blueberry. Also, an article about European blueberry isn't named 'European blueberry' but just uses the name of species. Therefore I think it's reasonable to rename the article about North American blueberry, and to set up a disambiguation page and redirects (European blueberry and North American blueberry). If you have any other idea on how to make both blueberries equally easy to find without using terms obscure for non-biologists, I'm all open for proposals."

I wasn't sure if the move was correct all the way, so I want some input. Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference, The page had been moved from Blueberry to Vaccinium Cyanococcus. I reverted because it seemed like an obvious controversial move and had not been discussed. See WP:FLORA for guidance on this issue. I think this article is titled appropriately because it refers to the section, not any individual species. The group as a whole is known collectively as blueberries. In other cases where English varieties do not agree, follow WP:ENGVAR, e.g. Rutabaga is titled at the American title as a matter of historical accident since it started there. The original move justification is not a justification for a move but for an improvement of the lead. It should be made clear that this section does not include the bilberries that can also be referred to as "blueberries." It's a similar problem as Bluebird. Lots of birds are blue and many of them are casually called bluebirds, but strictly speaking only one genus is commonly referred to as the Bluebird genus. Likewise, here, this single section, Cyanococcus, is referred to as the blueberries. I think hatnotes and an improved lead take care of this effectively. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this has been thought through very fully as yet. Rkitko raises some relevant points. I am not happy with the title "Vaccinium Cyanococcus" anyway. If we are using it as a species name it should be "Vaccinium cyanococcus" and we would need to justify calling it a species, which currently would be a challenging project. If we are referring to the series name, that should be reflected in the title, say "Vaccinium series Cyanococcus", but I am not sure that would be a very searchable title. My feeling is that the blueberry article should stand as it is, and so should the Bilberry article and all the others existing, such as Vaccinium, but that there should be careful editing of their mutual linking and mutual text references, to ensure that the coverage is complete and helpful, and that duplicated material is kept to a comfortable minimum. "Vaccinium series Cyanococcus" or any similar name should be reserved for an article, if any, dealing with the taxonomic nature of, and justification for, the series; there is no justification for putting the discussion of most of the material in the current blueberry article into such an article. Titles such as Blueberry or Bilberry suit the commercial and practical aspects and they are searchable in suitable contexts. With cross-references to each other and to Vaccinium, all bases would be conveniently and coherently covered. IMO JonRichfield (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Rkitko's reversion back to the status quo per his rationale and additionally common name policy. The original move should have been discussed first.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support the reversion, use of common name, and clarifying if needed with cross references. It seems clear to me as it is now. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Name

I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to properly add a searchable alternate name for "blueberry". Some parts of the United States call it "huckleberry". This is the origin of the name of the old cartoon "Huckleberry Hound" - something of a pun because Huckleberry is a blue-tick hound. For those who are not familiar with this term, it means the dog is a light grey color (grey is called "blue" for certain animals) with dark "tick" markings. Think of it as similar to brindle but using the colors grey and dark grey or black. That is not the best analogy, but maybe someone can provide a better one. Anyway, enjoy your huckleberry pie! I first heard this name when I was visiting Pennsylvania, so it might be regional to that part of the country. GrannyTurtle (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC) GrannyTurtle

Hi, Mrs. Turtle, welcome to Wikipedia. As a fellow American, I can definitely vouch for Huckleberries. Take a look at this article for more: Huckleberry ...I'd guess that the best thing to do might be to add a small note or sentence mentioning this alternate name. 67.240.61.209 (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

references

Hi Zefr, I tried to supply hearty references for the ideas... hope to learn more as I go. I am trying hard to supply more than bare web references, and even used the Wikipedia tool "reFill" but that tool wouldn't work. Do you have any other advice for the task of referencing the URL's? --Cityside189 (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cityside189. General Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources in an article such as Blueberry are a) to use a reliable source, WP:RS, which I believe we have achieved for the article's references, and b) to use the appropriate template designed for the corresponding source to be used as an inline citation according to WP:CITE. For a topic like blueberries, typical sources would be found from the web, a journal or a book, and the style and source details used are shown at this Wikipedia address.

When a source you find meets WP:RS, you can copy the template, access online the web, journal or book information, then fill in the details, preview your edit and save. Hope this helps you and other editors to use templates for consistency and ease of review in this and other articles. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Math inaccuracies

According to the US Department of Agriculture, Michigan and Georgia were the nation's largest producers of cultivated blueberries in 2014, followed by Oregon, Washington and New Jersey.[12] Maine produces 25% of all blueberries in North America with 24,291 hectares (60,020 acres) under cultivation.[16] Wild blueberry is the official fruit of Maine.

How is Maine 6th in production if they produce 25%? One of these facts seems to be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.114.220.64 (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Edited from updated sources; see here. --Zefr (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Production by US state

The blueberry crop yields in a given state vary quite a bit year to year meaning the order and even the leading state is not the same year to year. Maybe an average of production over the last 5 years would be better than a single year's crop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.134.39 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Various sources, such as the World Atlas here and Ag Marketing Resource Center (Iowa State University) here report slightly different orders of state volume production, so that is the information available. Seems ok to me to continue using annual updates for the article, as there are changes, such as more land being committed to blueberry growing in Washington (World Atlas). --Zefr (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate article

The article Vaccinium uliginosum describers the same species as this page. Either this article should be changed to describe several species or the two should be merged.

No, that's simply not true. This page describes Vaccinium sect. Cyanococcus, which includes commercial blueberries. Vaccinium uliginosum describes just one species, which is not included in the section. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of the Chandler variety of blueberry, whose berries are up to 20 mm (3/4 inch) in diameter. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Perhaps other blueberries native to the Americas such as Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), Vaccinium constablaei, Darrow's Evergreen Blueberry, Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), Rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei), Lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) should be mentioned? The article mentions US blueberries, but doesn't specify the species. // Liftarn

BLUEberries

Ooooooooooooo mama. Ya'll really trying my patience today.

Who found it necessary to mention that blueberries can be purple in the first line of this article? They blue. Their scientific name means "round blue thing". Maybe we reference that the deeper blues can get purple at some point in the body of the page, but to mention it in the first line would be like bringing up the fact that you're an unemployed alcoholic on the first date. Sure, it's something they should know, but for heaven's sake don't bring it up right away.

There are varieties of blueberries that are pink when ripe; not even remotely blue or purple. Be polite, and sign your posts. rowley (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Description

This edit was necessary because 1) the OSU source doesn't adequately (or at all) support the characteristics of color, bloom, taste, or seasonal harvest, and 2) the OSU source provides misinformation about anti-disease effects of consuming blueberries, failing WP:MEDRS. According to WP:MEDMOS, the source (horticulturalists writing medical content) is mismatched and misleading for the Wikipedia audience on blueberries, a disqualifying factor for choosing sources and creating doubt about the veracity of the OSU information. Two sources already in the article, both by government and a university botanical site, do support the botanical description statements in the article, so were reapplied. Zefr (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bizarre. I'm not going to sit here and edit war over this, but I think this needs the attention of other editors. Literally nothing in the above edit's edit summary, or in this comment, makes sense. Most saliently WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS are not involved here at all but also everything else is wrong. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There are many reliable science-based sources describing the characteristics of blueberries identified in the article. The OSU source contains blatant medical misinformation (first paragraph) that may mislead a non-science user. Why use it at all? Zefr (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note that the top comment was edited after my reply. I don't think it changes anything important however - my reply still stands. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ocarter23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Slav et al 2018

@Zefr: The source says in the last few years, and so that doesn't mean 2000 or generally in the 21st century. It means in the last few years up to the publishing date. Second: increases in production are important information and do belong here. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That source is inaccessible online so the date details are unconfirmed, and I believe unimportant per MOS:DATED and WP:NOTNEWS. I edited the two sentences into one because the prior version was verbose and clumsy. I think you were trying to overspecify. The sentence is accurate and succinct now. Zefr (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's hard to find a copy but it's free here. The years that cultivation began, and increased significantly, are important. Production numbers and export numbers and monetary value are always important and are the subject of study all the time. Governments, the IPPC, the EU, etc, all spend quite a bit of money collecting this information. Blueberries not suffering much, and then when ever problems do show up, will be relevant as it is for any other crop. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dubious source

Psychologist Guy - This source is questionable because it tends to mislead through all the promotional, peacock language of the title and article (WP:PEA), then concludes with "The bioactivity of anthocyanin metabolites in vivo, both collectively and individually, is still mostly unknown, as is the importance to health of anthocyanins localized in tissues. Another important question is the relative bioactivity in the colon of phenolic breakdown products of blueberry anthocyanins compared with similar phenolic compounds from other plant foods in the diet." The fate of anthocyanins and other blueberry polyphenols in vivo is impossible to determine due to unknown metabolism of the parent compound and its numerous metabolites. Anthocyanins are prohibited for use as a food additive by EFSA and the FDA due to dosing and safety concerns. The LPI source on flavonoids is more general, objective, and user-friendly. Zefr (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem with that review is that it was a health review on blueberries but it went into too much into the biological effects of and mechanism of anthocyanins most of which are still unknown and confusing to general readers so the authors of that paper have jumped the gun a bit but it does agree that more clinical research is needed on this subject. I understand we have an article on anthocyanins so that review paper side-tracks a bit but I added it to the wrong section. I would like to add a research section like we have on other articles that mention nutritional research being done on certain fruits. If you look at the apple article there is a section that mentions "Preliminary research is investigating whether apple consumption may affect the risk of some types of cancer". Many other articles have similar statements. I am not asking for anything more than a line or two. Because the same sort of research that is being done on apples and other fruits is being done with blueberries in regard to cardiovascular disease risk or diabetes [8] and cancer [9] etc. This has been going on for about 20 years in regard to blueberries in clinical trials. The Wilhelmina Kalt review is the latest review paper on blueberries in regard to health and it mentions a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, this seems to be supported by another recent review [10] but I don't think we should mention anthocyanins in detail as this article is not on that specifically and we already touch upon it. Similar to the apple article I would just like to mention that blueberries are being studied to affect nutrition and disease risk. The article does mention "biological effects" but I am not so sure this will be clear to the reader what this means. The source you cited [11] talks about biological activities related to the prevention of certain diseases but it doesn't mention blueberries in detail, it just cites them in a list for their anthocyanidin content. I agree that is it a good source but I would like to expand a bit on the nutritional research of blueberries. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a common occurrence for medical editors to debate a plant-food review containing medical content written by authors who are not medical scientists, as is the case with the Kalt source. The pattern across similar publications is exemplified by this paper's false logic: blueberries contain anthocyanins - anthocyanins have certain properties (at supraphysiological doses) in test tubes or lab animals indicating "anti-disease" effects - some weak associations between consumption of anthocyanin-rich foods and reduced disease incidence have been found in humans - therefore, blueberries have health benefits and prevent diseases. If this review were Wikipedia content, it would be called WP:SYNTH. By WP:MEDSCI, this review fails medical scientific consensus: 1) it would never be publishable in a quality medical journal, 2) no clinical association has already or would endorse the conclusions, 3) no scholarly medical reviews would likely use this source due to its vague associations, and 4) no regulatory agency would approve an anthocyanin-rich product as a drug. For perspective from EFSA (who studied anthocyanins more comprehensively than is in the general literature), we have this content in the anthocyanin article. There is insufficient MEDRS evidence at present to indicate that anthocyanins (or research on them) should be regarded as "nutrition" (polyphenols are not nutrients, but rather are phytochemicals with unknown properties in vivo; anthocyanins are certainly not essential to human organ functions or health). When we write into an article about a food's nutritional value, it should be about the actual nutrients present. To me, this means there is little to discuss, such as for blueberries, which supply only a few nutrients in low amounts. Zefr (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Having had a closer look at the sources you provided concerning blueberry consumption and diabetes or cancer, the diabetes source is weak by its own conclusion (worth mentioning at all in an encyclopedia?), and the cancer source is too weak overall to use. If we're going to have a human health research section, it's weak from the start by the poor experimental design and dubious outcomes of dietary studies, and is too vague in results to say anything beyond "research is being done", which has no real value for the encyclopedia; WP:V and WP:NOTDATABASE. Zefr (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Zefr I guess you are after medical reviews, not nutritional but I found one review you might approve of (see my last link). As for other reviews written by dietitians like this recent one [12] published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition or this detailed one [13] (might be a dud journal though), and the other I cited in the Advances in Nutrition journal that are all saying that anthocyanins found in foods like blueberries have potential health benefits and this [14] is typical to what is found on websites by registered dietitians so the general public will read this sort of thing and end up thinking they can prevent disease, and they are mostly talking about human trials, not animals. But these reviews as you have pointed out were not written by medical scientists.

Your experienced background is obviously as a medical scientist not from the angle of these dietitians so you know more about physiology. But the dietitians that are involved in examining results from various clinical trials all seem to be concluding in their reviews that foods rich in anthocyanins can prevent certain chronic diseases. The Advances in Nutrition journal seems to be an ok journal that is used on over 100 Wikipedia articles for citing nutritional research in regard to food but it is a weak source as you say to be citing on this topoc. You have said that this sort of review goes against the scientific medical consensus on this subject but I am confused about that. There seems to be polar ideas on this subject on one side the dietitians and the other medical scientists. Why are the dietitians so convinced that anthocyanin foods have health benefits? When you look around for recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on anthocyanins they all seem to conclude that they have health effects for example this review on the effects of anthocyanins on cardiometabolic health found "significant improvements in glycemic control and lipids" [15], this is clearly an effect but the Wikipedia article on anthocyanins citing a panel review 4 years before says no clinical studies have ever shown a beneficial physiological effect.

When I read over the European Food Safety Authority panel especially pages 7-9 it says [16] "that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of the food(s)/food constituent(s) and the claimed effect." The panel basically dismisses all such health claims as flawed. Yet on that same website it links to another review 6 months later [17] "The Case for Anthocyanin Consumption to Promote Human Health: A Review" which describes the health effects of anthocyanins and concludes that the metabolites may be responsible for much of their health-promoting properties and that natural anthocyanins have been ingredients of approved drugs for over 30 years and that they are safe. For me there is contradictory information on this subject in the reviews and I will stay away from editing this specific topic. On no other topic have I encountered such contradictory claims and statements because of this I am willing to agree its probably best to leave the article as it is. The topic has given me a headache and I lack the medical knowledge to understand it all but thank you for trying to explain it to me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)