Talk:Cherry juice

Removing cited paper
I am removing the line "A systematic review found that the effect of cherry juice on muscle soreness was insignificant.[18]" as the cited paper does not make any statements specifically about the effects of cherry juice. A few of the 50 studies included in the review used cherry juice, but the results of the study pooled all kinds of antioxidants together and there's no way to determine from this study whether or not cherry juice alone had any effect. For example cherry juice could have had a positive effect that was cancelled out by negative effects of other antioxidants in some of the other studies.

Cherry cider
There are hard cherry ciders like this, this and the alcohol-free types but I'm not finding quality sources. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added a bit (see diff). North America1000 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for local consensus
Pinging involved editors:, , , , ,. Please choose a version that you believe provides the necessary encyclopedic information for readers seeking information about the health claims of tart cherry juice. Atsme Talk 📧 14:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Version 2 - noting that after taking into consideration the criticism of verbosity in the edit summary per this revert, and claim of "unreliable additions" which happen to be quotes and a summary of the conclusions in a Cochran Database Syst Rev, I trimmed down my original edit without sacrificing what I believe to be necessary encyclopedic information that is lacking in Version 1; the exclusion of which makes Version 1 somewhat misleading and noncompliant with NPOV. Both versions cite the same RS. Atsme Talk 📧 14:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn Atsme  Talk 📧 10:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The unreliable additions referred to the use of blogs and primary sources promoting cherry juice as a treatment for insomnia.
 * The trouble with this is that starting with "A systematic review published December 2017 found that 'with high dose antioxidant supplementation, there was evidence of slightly reduced muscle soreness'", is that it presents the knowledge in a way which goes against the way the source itself concludes what the evidence means: "Antioxidant supplementation does not appear to reduce muscle soreness early on or at one, two, three or four days after exercise". So cherry picking this bit of contrary information out of context is confusing at best. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When a pilot study is notable enough to be covered in multiple secondary and 3rd party sources, we can include it. We're talking about tart cherry juice, not Red Bull where you should probably spend some time if MEDRS is the bar you've set for all drink articles. It's not my kinda bar, but oh well, cherry-o, have a Samuel Smith Old Brewery's cherry beer on me. Granted, the Science blog wasn't the best choice for a 3rd party source but the material was verifiable and cited to the American Journal of Therapeutics - besides, it was only 1 of 3 cited sources for that paragraph; the 3rd being the Journal of Medicinal Food (June 2010). Nothing prevents us from citing primary sources or from mentioning a notable pilot study as long as the latter is identified as such (DUE, BALANCE, WEIGHT), and notability is established. It would have been far more productive collaboration if you had taken the time to find other sources to cite instead of edit warring and accusing me of cherry picking. I have since found several more secondary/3rd party sources, including (to name a few) The Independent, another article here in Medical News Today, and this article in Prevention (which claims to have a medical review board). There was also a HuffPo contributor article that was authored by a clinical psychologist/board certified sleep specialist. Please feel free to add more material and sources if you've the mind to collaborate by helping to improve/expand this article. Atsme Talk 📧 20:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Any WP:Biomedical information needs to be supported by WP:MEDRS. Not primary sources or (seriously?) HuffPo !! Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red Bull is crying for your help, Alex. I don't know of anyone who died drinking cherry juice or was harmed in any way, except maybe their pocket book because it isn't cheap in comparison to orange juice. Minor claims that have been published in journals, and in 2nd and 3rd party sources really don't need policing by MEDRS proponents. It's not brain surgery. Stop focusing on a single source while ignoring all the other RS - and as to your criticism, don't forget that we look at the credentials of the authors of the articles, not just the publication. If you don't like HuffPo - fine, we can simply remove it. It doesn't matter to me. There are plenty of other sources. Be a good collaborator and help us find more sources instead of criticizing and picking on the little things you don't like. It's disruptive. Atsme Talk 📧 21:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are medical problems at other articles fix them yourself or raise it at WT:MED. As to the effectiveness of cherry juice as a treatment for insomnia, the WP:ONUS is on the editor wanting to include new material. I already looked: there is no RS on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting response - so you couldn't find any RS on this topic? Well, I found them, and took the time to update the material, citing it to the most recent literature review along with a few other study reviews. Your comment above: "Any WP:Biomedical information needs to be supported by WP:MEDRS" appears to be misinformation drawn from a page that is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. The TP indicates there is conflict about its acceptance. The RS I included above should have been adequate to satisfy WP:V and that is all we are required to do as editors, but I went ahead and went the extra mile to satisfy your challenge. It's time to move on now. Atsme Talk 📧 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no RS on cherry juice as a treatment for insomnia. We're not going to use unreliable sources for health content (is this going to be another Amygdalin drama?) and that quality committent has strong and deep community consensus. If by your updated review you mean PMID 30187293 then that is indeed a usable source - but it is not about cherry juice so what is the relevance? Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are being disruptive - you need to stop. That material was sourced to a literature review. You have no reason to either challenge or remove that material. Atsme Talk 📧 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is really bad to misrepresent sources - especially ones behind a paywall which few editors can check. Please quote me the sentence in that review you think supports your addition. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Alex, what is really bad is that fact that you removed quality RS that I worked hard all morning to find - sources that you said didn't exist - sources that support the material I added. Your credibility is seriously lacking right now. The material I added was accurately included, sourced and cited - none of which was misrepresented. You removed well-sourced material for no good reason except that you couldn't get behind the paywall of 1 source out of 3. It is quite obvious that you are not here to improve or expand this article. It is also apparent to me that you have no intention of being a productive collaborator - all you want to do is boss and bully others. You also need to stop throwing that 2015 amygdalin crap at me because it is 100% misrepresentation. Now that you've brought it up, you are one of the few editors who failed to apologize to me for your bad behavior back then. What you did was shameful. What you're doing now is reminiscent of the same irresponsible behavior, and it needs to stop. Atsme Talk 📧 15:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No answer I see. It seems you have been caught red-handed misrepresenting a source, damaging the encyclopedia apparently in an effort to score a WP:POINT. It is very lucky I had access to that paywalled source and so could put a stop to this. Alexbrn (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the information - it took longer that 6 minutes - you need to stop bludgeoning...Atsme Talk 📧 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Right so the source you cited doesn't actually discuss cherries at all. Are you confused about which source you are using? Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Below, you called MDPI "a dodgy publisher" and not reliable, then wikilinked the WP article (which actually is unreliable) that states MDPI "is listed at level 1 in the Norwegian Scientific Index for the year 2019. This is the standard rating, which designates a publisher as academic." Well, for reliability, I went to the index and typed MDPI in the search bar and for the past 3 years that publisher has been level 1 - hardly unreliable. What appears to be unreliable is Beall's List which is no more per this article. You may need to rethink what is and isn't a RS. Next...the link you provided above is the diff AFTER you removed my other source that was cited in the systematic review. Keep in mind that your reverts came within 13 min of my adding the info which was one of the "no-electricity" intervals I've been experiencing because of the current storm here, so I was unable to add the 3rd source (#3 above) which should have been first as the text more closely supports the material I added. As you can see by my incomplete paragraph (which I just completed), the electricity went off again. Couple that with your instantaneous reverts and refusal to discuss on the TP before reverting, and it's no wonder things got screwed-up. Atsme Talk 📧 17:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. MDPI sources don't have that; quite the opposite. Hence they are not used - feel free to check at WT:MED if you want expert opinion on how the WP:PAGs apply in the case of such publishers. Are you now acknowledging your edit did misrepresent the source you cited (because of technical difficulties)? If so I am happy to move on. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

These sources are:
 * 1) A WP:MEDRS source, but which does not discuss cherries or cherry juice at all so of no use here.
 * 2) A primary source, so fails WP:MEDRS
 * 3) A source in a journal from a dodgy publisher (MDPI), so not reliable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Total misrepresentation - just like your attempt to force me to abide by a guideline that turned out to be nothing more than an essay surrounded in controversy. It's obvious we're at a stalemate so I've taken the necessary steps to get it resolved. Atsme Talk 📧 16:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS has wide consensus as part of the WP:PAGs: biomedical information must be sourced to MEDRS and WP:Biomedical information is an explanatory note setting out what that is. The effect of a substance on human sleep is undoubtedly WP:Biomedical information. You have introduced one MEDRS, but it does not even mention cherry juice, so is not relevant here. Your edit thus misrepresented that source and obviously should not stand. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Version 1 (or some variation thereof). For good style in medical writing we generally don't put things like "A systematic review found". We don't put incidental details like the date of publication in either. We are meant to summarize sources in our own words, which is preferable to including chunks of verbatim quotation. If a better summary if possible that would be great, but the proposed wordy re-write is not an improvement. On a point of process, trying revert-warring and then going straight to an quasi-RfC pinging a load of editors who haven't edited the text in question, look distinctly odd. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "distinctly odd" (play Twilight Zone theme song here) about pinging involved editors to a local RfC. Your edit warring and lack of collegiate collaboration are plenty enough reason to call an RfC - and it is the correct process. Atsme Talk 📧 16:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * I'm trying to stay out of wiki-dramas, and wiki-anything for that matter, for a while, but I saw the interchange on Atsme's talk page, and thought that I would take a quick look here (but I'd prefer to avoid being asked for a continued discussion – rather just offering my take and leaving it at that). I feel very strongly that anything that even remotely approaches cherry juice can have X effect on health needs to be held to a very strict standard of WP:MEDRS. That's because readers often make decisions about their own health based on what they read on WP, even though they shouldn't, and we need to consider "first, do no harm". I get it, that people rarely overdose on fruit juice, but on the other hand, we must never give someone the impression that they can drink cherry juice instead of going to see their doctor. It makes no difference if the popular press takes up a particular study, because the popular press often latches onto "catchy" stuff that later turns out to be incorrect (as with vaccines and autism). Anything about health on this page: source it entirely to strictly MEDRS sources, or leave it out, full stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think the issue is not so much with juice (which sounds nice!) but with concentrate in capsules which is how this stuff is sold as part of the "Big Suppla" health supplement industry. Having said that I am now going to have to eat my words because, having searched the medical databases are found no RS I just now did a general web search for cherry juice and insomnia and found this from the NHS. I would be happy to use this to source something like "Claims have been made that cherry juice can be helpful for improving sleep for people with insomnia, but there is no good evidence to support these claims". Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Before you hit and run, Tryp, please take into consideration that the systematic review (what he calls the MEDRS source) actually cites #2 above (in green box) as footnote #13 in the review. I explained it to Alex in my #1 reference above. That portion of the review states (my bold underline): "...short sleep duration may lead to higher total energy intake and consumption of less-healthy foods [11, 12], while at the same time, diet could alter sleep duration and quality [13, 14]." Common sense dictates that if a systematic review cites a primary source to demonstrate that "diet could alter sleep duration and quality" and cites the article that I was citing here, "These data suggest that consumption of a tart cherry juice concentrate provides an increase in exogenous melatonin that is beneficial in improving sleep duration and quality in healthy men and women and might be of benefit in managing disturbed sleep.", it belongs in this article. That's why I kept the sources together but Alex deleted them. He needs to stop edit warring and gaslighting me. The 3 sources I cited are perfectly acceptable for the information I was including, and they pass MEDRS. Atsme  Talk 📧 20:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Textbook WP:SYN that would be. We are cautioned: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Using a source that never mentions cherry juice, to make a statement about cherry juice, is absurd. Similarly, continuing to call primary sources WP:MEDRS is now verging on a WP:CIR issue. Alexbrn (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't WP:SYNTH, it's a citation by a secondary source referencing a primary source. It's simply pointing readers to the published information in the primary source. Atsme Talk 📧 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to check, WP:RS/N is thataway if you want to waste even more people's time. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MEDRS explicitly says that primary sources should not be used to counter the conclusions of secondary sources. It is pretty unremarkable that a primary study is cited by a review paper; that’s what reviews do. Being cited in one doesn't make a primary study MEDRS. Brunton (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , this entire discussion began because the challenging editor said there were no RS. MEDRS states (my bold underline): Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources. However, they normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care : they are often incomplete[20] and typically less useful or reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive. If challenged by another editor in good faith, the primary source should be supplemented with a more appropriate source. - which I did as evidenced above by other secondary sources. Noting that the systematic review referenced that particular study to demonstrate how diet could alter sleep duration and quality, albeit through the consumption of cherries (juice) which gives secondary source validity to the primary study. I have a .pdf version of the systematic review.


 * The other issue is the blanket condemnation of Nutrients (journal) because it is published by MDPI, which was once included on Beall's "blacklist" and long since removed. WP editors are not in a position to make judgements about the guilt or innocence of anyone - we go by what RS say, and from where I sit, Nutrients is a RS because it is included on the PMC Journal List. Am I now supposed to believe that PMC publishes predatory journals and conduct OR in an effort to validate the accuracy of the allegations without access to all the relevant information? Based on WP's PAGs, I was citing a legitimate journal review. Oh, and I just found this literature review but I'm not sure it would pass as "specialist academic" or not. There is also a list of other secondary sources such as Prevention which has a medical review board. Atsme Talk 📧 13:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The systematic review does not mention cherries. Citing it as if it does it dishonest. Theses and "prevention.com" are obviously not MEDRS. This is desperate stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a TP wherein we discuss content and sources, and that isn't disruption. Your aspersions and gaslighting is disruption. I've done nothing to justify you calling me dishonest, Alex.
 * Are you saying the systematic review did not cite "Effect of tart cherry juice (Prunus cerasus) on melatonin levels and enhanced sleep quality" to support its statement that "diet could alter sleep duration and quality [13, 14]"? Is that what you're saying?
 * Re: Prevention, are you saying that source has been determined to be unreliable at RSN? It utilizes a medical review board and it was simply going to be cited as an additional source in laymen terms regarding an LSU study co-authored by Frank L. Greenway, director of the outpatient research clinic at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at LSU. WP:MEDPOP states: Peer-reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD, UpToDate, and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly. As for news sources, WP:MEDPOP says:A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the which is what I was attempting to do before you sidetracked everything. WP:MEDSEARCH also says PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years.
 * What is your justification that I haven't been following MEDRS? Atsme Talk 📧 16:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice sealion there. Of course the systematic review cites the source, for a banal point (of course food can affect sleep quality). But it does not even mention cherry juice once. Citing something does not mean the it is somehow magically imported wholesale into the citing text. It would be best if you got a WP:CLUE. By the way, yet another "mistake" you seem to have made is writing above in your source list that the primary source is from 2019. In fact it's from 2012. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, Alex - if I made a mistake, fix it. What's the big deal? This is a collaborative project so stop the PAs. I'm not as perfect as you seem to think you are - I'm here to help expand and improve the article. You're obviously here for different reasons. Cherry juice is not medicine - it's not a medical article - but there have been claims about the health benefits of cherries. Jiminy Cricket, what's wrong with sharing knowledge with our readers? They're going to see it online and wonder why we don't have any info about it. I've been following MEDRS in that regard. Either help in a collaborative manner or please go find something else to do. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It kind of matters that it's seven year old primary source. I have fixed the article. Cherry juice is marketed and sold as a health supplement, as mentioned above (and in the article). MEDRS applies to health information anywhere not in "medical articles" (whatever that means). Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What does the introductory/background/review section of the primary source say? And, just as importantly, what does it cite this to? As far as I can see you have so far only been quoting the conclusions section of the abstract. I don’t have access to the full paper (it might be available in a library I have access to, but it would mean going rather out of my way).  If it cites good sources for the statement about melatonin, for example, we could perhaps use those. Brunton (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Brunton, thank you so much. The primary states the following: The Springer link is here. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BACKGROUND: Tart Montmorency cherries have been reported to contain high levels of phytochemicals including melatonin, a molecule critical in regulating the sleep-wake cycle in humans.
 * PURPOSE: The aim of our investigation was to ascertain whether ingestion of a tart cherry juice concentrate would increase the urinary melatonin levels in healthy adults and improve sleep quality.
 * That’s just the abstract again. I have access to that, but not the full text. What does the “background” section of the actual article say, and what sources does it cite? Brunton (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Will this link help? I don't have the full article but a quick Google search came up with this and this, and a lot more. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Better yet, Brunton - . <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 18:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean all this time you've been battling over a source you haven't even read! That is very bad. See WP:NOABSTRACT. FWIW I have studied the the source and it states that melatonin is contained in cherry juice on the basis of "An independent laboratory (Atlas Bioscience Inc., Tuscan, AZ) conducted melatonin analysis of the cherry juice concentrate adapting an established HPLC method" citing PMID 10220915. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, please - you said there were no RS, and then started whining because it was behind a paywall. I paid $43.25 to Springer for my download yesterday so don't go there. Yes, I read it and the systematic review, and was looking for full text that could be shared with Brunton before you started in again and are now swearing in your edit summaries. That is terrible behavior, Alex. This article needs to be written for the average reader, not just for research scientists and academics. That's why I was including the other secondary sources to cite along with the academic sources. I didn't fall off a fricken pumpkin truck yesterday, so please settle down and stop treating me with such condescension. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)