Talk:Superfruit

message: The WP:BETTER guide is a helpful road map for anyone wishing to constructively respond to the request for improving quality of the superfruit article. --Paul144 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An introduction has been added, text linked to best available references, checks made on references to assure they are reliable and independent and the reference format has been made uniform. I believe the article is "cleaned up" as much as possible for now, so am removing the cleanup banner. What else is needed to improve the article? --Paul144 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guide to writing a better article

message: "In 2004, the term superfoods was popularized by a best-selling book " What book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.153 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 May 2007 
Pratt S, Matthews K (2004). Superfoods Rx, New York: HarperCollins. --Paul144 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: needs a third-part source for this statement. just citing the book is original research.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 08:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In 2004, the term superfoods was popularized by a best-selling book " 

message: Is Acerola not "super"? --Wetman 04:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subjectively, I would put acerola in a second tier, as it's often an ingredient but not so often the lead or highlighted fruit in consumer products. I haven't seen any objective industry data for acerola rising in consumer interest. Maybe guarana (currently on the list) would be better described this way also. --Paul144 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Superfruits?

message: FYI - This entire article sounds like a sales pitch for superfruits.  All the parts about growing market share make this article sound more like sales collateral than an encyclopedia entry.  More attention needs to be paid to the health benefits and what exactly a superfruit is.
--Staypuftman 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said this yesterday in a closed within-text statement for the article when another user complained of the same tone: there is nothing to advertise but rather the page is an observation of commercial activity occurring in the food and beverage industry (References). The fruits listed as "superfruits" have been identified that way by others and have a commercial history of success in the global market. This page tracks an industry event that has been evolving since 2005.
My point is that I started the page as a bookmark on where we are at the beginning of a new category in the general commercial fields of functional foods and nutraceuticals. I'm open to change and welcome your comments about rewording statements differently.
I think we have to place a benchmark about where the superfruits category is today for commercial success (via sales reports, although no products are being mentioned, despite there being many). This helps further define what a superfruit is, as it has to have demonstrated market interest via sales success to qualify as "super". As I point out below the list, there are other candidates but they haven't met yet this criterion, so don't qualify by the criteria offered.
As for health benefits, we and any manufacturers can't go there to any extent unless there have been sufficient clinical trial results to support a claim. See this, announced this week. 
Alternately to making health benefit claims would be evidence for each fruit's nutrient- and antioxidant-richness, as this is where they do become definable as superfruits via the health criteria.--Paul144 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The dependence upon primary sources makes the article questionable.  I think the advert tag should stay until more of the content is balanced based upon independent sources.--Ronz 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales Pitch or Encyclopedia? 

message: On July 16, unregistered user 137.222.12.24 made a revision in the article to include a statement in the Introduction that the EU was banning use of the terms "superfruit" or "superfood" resulting from uncorroborated and unsubstantiated health claims being made for foods so described.
Here is the inserted sentence: On July 1st 2007 the use of the terms 'superfruit' and 'superfood' was banned in marketing in the EU in an attempt to restrict the uncorroborated and unsubstantiated health claims being made for foods so described.
Although that concept has some merit when the term is used that way, it seems a radical step for the  European Food Safety Authority to adopt, so I checked for recent press releases and do not see such an announcement, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release.html.
I think we should revert that statement in the article until it is confirmed by a EFSA press release. --Paul144 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EU use of the term "superfruit" in marketing

message: The reference formatting needs a lot of cleanup (eg extraneous links to the year and date, linking the entire reference when only the article name should be hyperlinked, multiple instances of the same reference).  The external links section should be trimmed down to high-quality articles directly relevant to the topic.  --Ronz 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Can I count on your help? --Paul144 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I believe that 'superfruit' should not be used as an article title unless it meets the requirements of WP:NEO. This is a guideline which is intended to keep Wikipedia from becoming a marketing vehicle for new proposed uses of words: 
New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term... To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.Books promoting the use of the terms 'superfoods' or 'superfruit' obviously don't count as reliable, independent sources about the usage of those terms.  Currently the reference list of the article does not contain anything that (in my view) shows that 'superfruit' is an accepted term. This suggests to me that the article should be renamed, unless other sources are found. EdJohnston 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is jumping ahead of what I've been doing, but I agree. --Ronz 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If this article can be kept at all under its current title, it may have to be treated as a discourse on the usage of a marketing term (like 'faster faster better better'). I'm not anticipating any neutral descriptive usage of the term, like in a medical journal: 'Pineapple was tested and found not to be a superfruit.'  This is not likely to happen. EdJohnston 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term 'superfruit' is a [[WP:NEO|neologism]] 

message: ..this category remains undefined with no scientific standards or commercial criteria accepted uniformly in the industry. This article establishes a foundation for assessing superfruit candidates and defining this important emergent category for foods and beverages.
I believe this quote from the article shows a dilemma. If it's an undefined category, then Wikipedia's article doesn't have a topic. The remark that 'this article establishes a foundatiion..' is the kind of thing that you would see in an original research article. It is not up to us to establish a foundation; it is our mission to report a consensus that already exists. 
More broadly, it appears that this article's topic is a marketing campaign.  So we would be documenting what people have *said* superfruit is, rather than what it actually is.  It would be documenting the chief proponents of the campaign, and writing about the impact of the campaign on what is being said in the industry and by other market participants. So this would not be a scientific article about fruit. EdJohnston 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is our mission to report a consensus that already exists -- this is the editing challenge. The topic is worthy of our attention to state it for what it is: a new market category affecting consumer behavior. I think we can overcome your and Ronz's concerns just with better writing. I'm certainly willing to go back and try different expressions, but could use your help to identify specific confusing areas. --Paul144 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The part that is easy to document is that there is a promotional campaign. You can't really say 'a new market category suddently came to exist,' because what data would you possibly collect to determine that?  A market category is just a useful fiction.  The problem that I see with this article could be mostly cured by renaming it to 'Superfruit marketing.'  Then we could make 'Superfruit' be a redirect to 'Superfruit marketing.' EdJohnston 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since we're considering what this article is about, let's keep in mind that we need independent reliable sources to support whatever is in the article.  To avoid NPOV and WP:OR problems, it would be a good time to find some such sources before we go too far or too quickly in renaming the article. --Ronz 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm done commenting on the sources until we get third-party help.  If you're done with the Talk:Superfruit#Reviewing_references discussion, I'll write up a WP:RSN as I said I would. --Ronz 22:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Industry_references_and_external_links_for_superfruit_article Thanks! --Ronz 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the actual topic of this article? 

message: I don't think this belongs in the article, though it's a good description of the purpose and focus of the article now given the above discussions.
The following discussion is not intended to be an advertisement for this food category or for any individual fruit or product. Rather, examples are given to reveal the growth rate of a new category in the functional foods industry having significant potential to influence dietary uses of high-nutrient, antioxidant-enriched fruits. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you say are the priorities for getting the article with the right non-advertorial tone and references? After about a month of waiting for input from the WP:RSN Noticeboard, I think we can conclude we're not going to receive anything from there. Perhaps if you could make a brief "to do list", we could begin to edit the article to a version you and Ed feel is satisfactory. --Paul144 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're on the right track.  It would be helpful to find other ways to get more editors involved here.  Maybe one or more projects would be applicable? --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:PROJECT gives the list of projects.  Taking only a quick look through them, I don't see any that look a perfect match, but maybe WP:BUSINESS would be a good place to ask for help. WP:RETAIL might also be worthwhile to try. --Ronz 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article - Industry

message: User 83.16.132.162 makes an argument that blackcurrant has long been established with superfruit criteria.
In terms of nutrient, phytochemical and specifically antioxidant qualities, I would agree it has. But these are not the only criteria needed to gain superfruit status the way the article presents. Qualifiers missing
# not established in diverse consumer products or markets outside western Europe and Australia/New Zealand
# not usually included by industry authors among superfruit category analyses or discussions
# global or regional revenues on product sales have not been presented; how large is its total world market?
# its taste is preferred only by a limited number of consumers
# fresh market remains only local
To summarize as the article tries to capture, a superfruit needs evidence both for compositional and market qualities to meet the criteria for being "super". If not holding to such a dual definition, then -- as is evident from press releases by many manufacturers in recent industry news -- any fruit can be called a superfruit if the manufacturer says so. --Paul144 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does blackcurrant meet all criteria to be a superfruit?

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I've tried to be bold and scythed away some of the most obviously unencyclopaedic sections. The sections dealing with the development of the concept within the food industry are relatively reasonable. Still can't quite tell how much the list of criteria related to market success is original research. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimming

message: I propose merging this article with Superfood. Superfruits are essentially a subset of superfoods in general, and there's substantial duplication of content, since it's basically the same marketing strategy, whether it's applied to Quinoa or Pomegranates. Neither article is particularly overloaded with indispensable content, so I don't see that we'll end up with an over-sized or bloated article if we combine the two. Discussion will be centralized at Talk:Superfood#Proposed_merger_of_Superfruit_into_Superfood. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 20:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge completed; open for editing at Superfood. --Zefr (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Superfood]]? 

message: Substituted at 07:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment