Talk:Pineberry

NO JOKE
The pineberry is a real fruit and a key fruit to the Vitalberry business. Fruit is being sold in the UK supermarket Waitrose and across Holland and Europe in top restaurants by Vitalberry BV. For more information or questions please visit www.vitalberry.eu

I reverted my own edit... seems it must be a hoax - no mention of it on the internet prior today as far as I can see.... +&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;+ (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an april fool's that took off a day to early. Pineberry is an internet marketing company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.151.125 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not an April Fool's joke. I have uploaded a photo of pineberries I bought in Waitrose this week Emmbean (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I can also confirm that I came across a punnet of them on the shelves of a Waitrose store in Sandhurst on the 4th of April (before I'd read anything about them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.116.114 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a real fruit sold in Pennsylvania and just bought them. They are delicious Amanda2223 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

April Fool's Marketing Gimmick
This is not a real fruit. There is a marketing company named Pineberry and this is their attempt to not only pull an April Fool's joke, but to also show the world how good their marketing and advertising skills are. Here's the website:.

I'm going to add a bit to the wikipedia article about this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * There's also a twitter by one of the people that work for the company stating "Pineberry Jam: http://www.pineberry.biz  (admit it I had to)." When I figure out what his particular position is in the company, I'll post that on the page as well- it's pretty obviously an admission to his friends that this is a prank/marketing gimmick. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Reversion War
While I'm definitely thinking that this is all a PR stunt & ultimately should be deleted, I don't think that it is really worth a reversion war at this time. I'm fairly certain that within 24-48 hours the Pineberry company will step forward to tell everyone that it is all fake. The company does SEO- a process that is supposed to push a company or item up to the top of the internet search engines. Clearly, they're doing a bang up job. I'm honestly fairly impressed. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Plus it should be noted that the site is put out by Pineberry as well. (Click on the "home" tab- you'll see the Pineberry logo come up at the top.) I'm freaking in love with this company. This is the greatest April Fool's prank in a long while!
 * I also want to note that if there's enough media buzz about this after the whole thing is revealed, this might merit an entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Possibly true?
Who knows? All I can say is that there is enough information to honestly doubt whether or not this fruit and/or the VitalBerry company exists. Until the media reports on the first person holding berry in hand, I say that the April Fool information should remain. Afterwards if it is proven true, the April Fool information can be incorperated into the article as an amusing side note. I just choose to be skeptical of anything released the day before April 1st, especially with such limited information. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79

The fruit is real, come to Pennsylvania and buy some lol Amanda2223 (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Pineberries - NOT a hoax!
The Pineberry is a real fruit and is grown by the specialist softfruit company Vitalberry BV in Holland. Pineberries are on sale in the UK supermarket Waitrose until the 15th April. For more information: www.vitalberry.eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalberry (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only other problem I have is that Waitrose has also done an April Fool's prank similar to this the previous year. They advertised pineapple bananas (pinanas), which were of course revealed to be false. Between that and the internet site info, you can clearly understand why I am not really willing to believe that these berries actually exist until I see multiple pictures of grinning consumers as they clutch their pineberries. Especially since there was previously no information about these berries on the internet before this, the berries were announced on the eve of April 1st, are to be sold in a store who posted an ad about a similar (fake) product the year before, AND virtually every news story says the exact same thing. If these berries are in fact real and not an elaborate April Fool's prank (just because its elaborate doesn't mean that it isn't possible), then I'll gladly let everyone laugh at me. I just am not willing to believe this until I see consumers reporting in on this. So far, I haven't come across any actual consumers who have laid hands on the product. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
 * Pro-tip: The Vitalberry site is part of the hoax. Pineberries in the form advertised by that site and Waitrose allegedly taste of pineapple. While white varieties of strawberries exist, they don't taste of pineapple. You can't unfortunately use a website that has the potential to be part of the hoax as a reliable source. Eventually people will realise this and the article will be rewritten. Until then, I'm just going to sit back and watch endless people enter a revert war over unreliable and hoax sources. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Waitrose Website
Now I don't want to appear a little simplistic but has anyone actually checked the Waitrose website?

Well, I have and there is no reference to 'pineberries' either by searching the site or their home shopping portal which seems odd considering A) the supposed seasonality of these mystery fruit which is claimed to be only a matter of weeks and B) this is meant to be the first sale of this fruit in this country so you think there would be a little more hoopla about their arrival at Waitrose.

Go and check it out for yourself if you like at www.waitrose.com.

I don't want to spoil anyone's fun but come on, this is obviously a bit of April Fool's fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.27.58 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Article makes me doubt the existence even more
I began to read this article, thinking "gee, maybe this is real"... The article listed here states that consumers were having various allergic reactions, but it wasn't until I read it fully. With responses like these, I'm even more convinced that this is a hoax:

"Symptoms are varied but include headaches, vomiting, painful diarrhea and loss of spending cash."

"Oh, well then its probably fine to eat. These differences only matter if it is GM" said Linguini. "

"I like the sharp taste of them" said customer Betty Gorham. "It burns a little on the way down but I think I can get used to that. People are too sensitive these days. Live a little!"

""Reports of any connection between our pineberries and these unfortunate cases of illnesses are completely unfounded. I ate some, half a dozen people at corporate ate some. That proves it, doesn't it?""

I'm thinking that we're going to get something pretty soon stating that this was all a joke. I have to admit that if it is, it's pretty funny- especially since they'd go to these lengths to do such a thing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I'm still trying to think of a way to add this into the article but make it seem non-partial. Most of the article comments are pretty tongue in cheek, so its hard to do it & not make it look like I'm trying to make the berries seem fake. I think I'll just use direct quotes from the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Oh, nevermind- it ended up being a fake news report. It wasn't until I thoroughly scoured the page attempting to verify it or discover which person wrote it that I discovered the April Fool's post in it. (I figured it was an April Fool's thing, but not of that variety. LOL!) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

Guess they are real...
Ok- I did a quick & dirty flickr search & discovered these images:Pineberries 1 Pineberries 2

Unless the Beeker people went back in time or were planning an April Fools prank back in 2009 (unlikely even by my skeptical standards), this picture looks legit & the berries must be real since this wasn't posted by a news source or by anyone working for Waitrose or anyone else associated with the berries. Can someone upload their own picture to the page so we can have a picture for the site? Also I need a consensus on whether or not the April Fool's section should be kept or deleted. Apart from one or two mentions, there really isn't a reason to keep it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * The rumour about pineapple-flavoured white strawberries has existed for at least a year - but it was far more low-key when it was previously "found". One of the sources (Dutch PDF about them) was created last April. The article should eventually be rewritten as a hoax one - but people will take a long time to come to the realisation that almost all the sources are unreliable or running with the joke. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure
While i've seen the flickr photo's above. I'm still not sure what to think. I mailed vitalberry last week asking them what retailers they were selling to. They didn't reply, so i called them up yesterday. The man couldn't give me a straight answer, he said he would mail me the list later on. Couple of hours later I got called by them, where they said there was only one company they were selling to in my area, which was a wholesaler. I called the wholesaler, lady on the phone said that they have been buying berries of the 'VitalB' Brand, but she had never seen any white berries in her life. Also. Some small fruitseller in holland has the berries on his pricelist. It's completely on the other side of the country so i can't visit. The strange thing is, is that the price list was updated april 1st. When I called to ask (yesterday) he said he had been selling the berries for at least 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.216.233 (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Similiarities to Frutilla Chilena?
I've heard about another fruit that is just like this, but is called "Frutilla Chilena" in Chile. On the Spanish language wiki they have an entry, which is listed below: (with google translation)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragaria_chiloensis&ei=LJziS-fLL4uC8wTY09mRAw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFrutilla%2BChilena%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DGQe%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

Some articles even state that it has a pineapple-ish flavor. Would it be worth it to add that in as a note to the article? There's one here on wikipedia, but it isn't as well fleshed out & it states that the strawberries only come in red, when the Spanish language article clearly shows white strawberries & multiple pages refer to it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79

inconsistency
The article is currently inconsistent: it claims in the first paragraph that it's a hybrid of F. chiloensis (from South America) and F. virginiana (from North America), but then in the third paragraph it claims: "Pineberries were bred from a species of South American wild strawberry" (and it used to state until recently it is believed they have the same genetics as the garden strawberry; if anything at all they at least have the same origins if F. virginiana is involved).

There's also a claim that the pineberry was nearly extinct.

While the first interpretation was my understanding, the vitalberry.eu page (citation 1) actually backs up the second understanding - as far as I can tell it'd be a cultivar of F. Chiloensis.

So what is going on here? Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)  Also, here's an article with some actual facts: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/13/310459918/gardeners-gems-this-years-hottest-edibles-will-wow-the-neighbors

Pineberry company
I've shortened the references to the otherwise unnotable Internet company Pineberry as it was looking too much like advertising. Ben Finn (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Home Depo?
The claim that they are being sold at Home Depot strikes me as a bit odd, I guess it is plausible they might sell the seeds but they are a hardware store and do not carry any produce. There are several other chains that seem more likely than them to be early adopters of that even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.233.106 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Home Depot & Lowes both carry tomatoes & potatoes in their garden sections, so why would strawberries be a stretch?73.97.198.154 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times
While I understand the anonymous editor feels The New York Times "can hardly be considered a reliable source on a botanical subject" and "succeed(ed) in having everything wrong" (by us misquoting it), I am of the belief that it is reliable.

If you disagree, please take the question to the reliable sources noticeboard. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 4 days with no response, other than insistence on my talk page that the New York Times is not reliable for information on "botanical subjects". (Incidentally, where a plant was originally cultivated, where it is grown today and where it is exported from -- while certainly involving botany -- seem to me to involve a dozen other field: history, economics, foreign relations, etc. Similarly, the question of who first put borax in a box and sold it is hardly a question for a geologist or chemist.)
 * If there are additional reliable sources that give info which supports or runs counter to what the NYT says (as opposed to the original garbled version we reported), we can certainly figure out how to handle that. Until there is something more than one editor flatly stating the NYT is not a reliable source, I will be handling it as a reliable source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For reasons I can only guess at, the anonymous editor refuses to discuss the article on the article's talk page.
 * Summary: Anonymous tells me newspapers are never right. They then outline a few things the article says and claim that something else is right. They also say that I am not a botanist and therefore I don't know. I am the problem with Wikipedia.
 * Anonymous: You made a bold edit to the article. I reverted you. At that point, the next step is to discuss the issue and work toward a consensus on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. Instead, you have decided to prove that you are right by telling us that the New York Times is wrong and you are right.
 * You will need to discuss the issue and build a consensus to keep your change.
 * You telling us what you believe to be true does not establish that you are right and the NYT is wrong. It establishes that you believe something the NYT contradicts. The NYT is a reliable source. I am not claiming it is always right. I am stating that what it says is verifiable. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying you are an anonymous person on the Internet. Wikipedia will not cite you on this. If you have reliable sources that contradict what the NYT says, bring that source here and we can develop a consensus on how to handle it.
 * "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm an expert. I need not prove anything." Doesn't work when you are an anonymous person on the Internet. Maybe you wrote the definitive history of strawberries. Maybe you're a crank who hates the New York Times. I don't know. If it is the former, cite it and we'll have something to discuss that is more meaningful than "Should we cite the New York Times or let some random person on the Internet write the entire article based on what they say is true?" - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You obviously have no botanical knowledge, but still you want to interfere with a botanical subject. That means that you're indeed a major problem in Wikipedia: contributors that have no knowledge on the subject that they are editing. The NYT article was in severe conflict with the other sources cited (it's just a matter of reading the cited sources, and comparing the info they provide) and even if one only has the internet as the sole source of information, it became clear very quickly that the author of the NYT article (Florence Fabricant) was not a botanist or someone with any knowledge on cultivated plants, but just someone who was ordered to write a short article on a subject that she was not familiar with. The cultivar discussed here is a hybrid between a South-American (Fragaria chiloensis) and a North-American (Fragaria virginiana) species, first made in France around the 1750's. This particular cultivar has white "berries", and it was discovered in Bretagne by some Dutch plant breeders, who thought they could develop a special white variety out of it. It was never cultivated in Belgium, nor was it discovered in South-America, as the NYT article claimed.
 * Anonymous did not claim "the newspapers are never right." Anonymous concluded that the specific NYT-article on "Pineberry" was full of errors, based on the other available and cited sources. Wikipedia stating that NYT is "a reliable source" does not mean that any information that is found in one of their articles should be taken for correct without further checking. The newspaper may be reliable on political subjects, but they obviously are not reliable when it comes to subjects that are not their main specialty, like botany or cultivated plants. Just accepting information that was published in NYT as reliable only because they were labeled as a reliable source is plain stupidity. Any serious contributor to this encyclopedia should have a broader view on the material available on the topic. QED. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the article talk page. Thanks for joining the discussion.
 * You,, are "anonymous". You said, "...newspapers, no matter which one, NEVER succeed in publishing an article on that subject that has got everything right."
 * That's swell. You also tell us you are an expert and repeatedly claim the New York Times is wrong. Again, that's swell. You also tell us the NYT says X, but the truth is Y. Once again, swell. Summing it up, we can say with absolute certainty that someone editing from The Netherlands says the NYT article is wrong, wrong, wrong. They also believe -- quite incorrectly -- that editing Wikipedia articles is or should be limited to self-declared subject experts.
 * You seem to feel that removing the article you do not trust and adding your assertions in their place will resolve the issue. That is not how Wikipedia works.
 * Here is how it works:
 * 1) Partialize. Rather than a slow-motion edit warring in the hopes that anyone else will "give in" and walk away, discuss individual pieces of info you believe are incorrect one at a time. Pick one to start with.
 * 2) Directly quote/cite the sources that support what you believe is correct, along with the text in the NYT source.
 * 3) Work to develop a consensus on that one issue, then impliment the change.
 * 4) Repeat with the next fact. The discussion on this talk page remains available to clarify the issues -- and the resolutions -- for months and years to come.
 * The other choice is arguing you -- an anonymous person on the Internet -- are an expert, are right, the NYT always gets things wrong and everyone should simply accept the changes you make and they will remain forever because, hey, you're the expert! You then get to return to this article repeatedly for the rest of recorded history to reassert your expert status and repeatedly remove the NYT article. That simply will not work. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a cultivar?
This site claims pineberries are not a cultivar & predate strawberries. https://naturesproduce.com/encyclopedia/pineberry/#:~:text=Pineberries%20are%20native%20to%20Chile,to%20eat%20berry%20like%20fruit.

Snopes claims they are based on wild pineberries found in France & it is implied they are a genetically modified &/or choice bread cultivar of themselves & not cross-bread with strawberries. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-strawberries-taste-pineapples/ 73.97.198.154 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)