Talk:Juniper berry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Juniper berry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 July 2006.

Juniper berry has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Hi Bunchofgrapes - couple of queries on this: First, is 'berry' really the best title for it, considering it is a misnomer (being a cone, not a berry; yes, while common in popular usage, I'm not sure if we should perpetuate popular myths/misconceptions in titles); I'd suggest perhaps Juniper (spice). Second, "flavoring European" comes over as very odd - should that be not either "flavoring American", or "flavouring European"? (i.e., if it is primarily a European topic, it should follow UK English, in line with the MoS). Thanks, - MPF 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Juniper berry" is a very widely-used term for it and the WP:NAME policy actually does bias toward common names as opposed to "correct", "official", or "technical" ones, so I'm going to dig my heels in a little there. You're right about the more generally European slant of it though -- will change. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, any cookbook or bottle of good gin you care to pick up will call them juniper berries.--Peta 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; agreed that the term 'berry' is commonly used for them, I wasn't suggesting it be removed outright from the page, just a more neutral, less misleading page title. But I guess I can live with it. I've some more info to add in the next day or two (other species used, phenology, etc), but can't find a cite for J. californica use, do you have one for that? - MPF 10:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Peattie and Landacre's A Natural History of Western Trees p 226 describes califorica's berries: "the flesh dry, mealy, and fibrous but sweet and without resin cells". This page (I admit I haven't investigated its credentials very hard, it might not be an RS) says "Despite the fact that eating juniper berries is like chewing pine-flavored gum, they have been used for food at various points in history. The Native Americans preferred the California juniper (Juniperus californica), the Utah juniper (Juniperus utahensis), and the check-barked or alligator juniper (Juniperus pachyphlaea)." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; for updating, "J. utahensis" is a synonym of J. osteosperma, and "J. pachyphlaea" is a synonym of J. deppeana (I've eaten this myself and had wondered whether to add it, but didn't want to break WP:NOR, so it's good to have a reference for that one!). Other Mexican junipers I've tried, tasted nasty (J. flaccida, J. angosturana, J. coahuilensis and one or two others). - MPF 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to eat the trees! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmph, now it looks weird to talk about "Native American Jewellery". Oh well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Only Spice? 2 Dalby ref query 3 Sections? 4 References before or after periods 5 Good article

[edit] Only Spice?

Technically, stone pine seeds are also spices. They are not used in nutritionally significant quantities.

I'd disagree there; they are oil-rich, very high-calory, so they do add significantly as a nutritional component. I've never heard of them being called a spice. - MPF 10:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in Turkey they are used in many dishes like dolmas sparingly, it's just for the flavoring. Maybe because it's as expensive as many exotic spices. --Turanyuksel 10:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

At least in scandinavia there are various spices made from conifer trees. The humble pine tar is used in some sweets and alcohol. Young fir needles are used in dishes made of game (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuusenkerkkä). Also, I've seen a cake which had ground pine seeds as a main ingredient, apparently it was an exotic speciality from Karelia area. --82.181.124.80 09:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these would be called 'spices' in English (even if they are called krydder or mauste in Scandinavian languages). The needle use would be considered a herb, the resin a flavouring. Peculiarities of the English language, I guess. - MPF 10:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this fact is now (reasonably) contested, I've NPOV-ificated up the assertion in the article by asserting it as a fact about an opinion ("according to the FAO"), rather than as a fact itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if Spice addressed some of these questions. (nudge nudge) Melchoir 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalby ref query

"berries of species growing in Greece but not Egypt have been found in Egyptian tombs, including that of Tutankhamun" (ref: Dalby)

Does Dalby say which species? J. communis does occur in Greece, but only in remote high altitude mountain areas (not a good candidate for trade); J. phoenicea is common in lowland coastal areas, but also occurs in Egypt (local, northern Sinai); this leaves the most likely candidate as J. oxycedrus (widespread in Greece, not present in Egypt) or possibly J. excelsa (local in Greece, not in Egypt), but I'm not aware of these being used as a spice (that's not to say they aren't!) - MPF 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't say in Dangerous Tastes; in his 1996 Siren Feasts, p 142, he says "arkeuthís and kédrion", which I suppose are romanized versions of the terms used by the ancient Greeks for the species (and probably of no help,)... I'll keep looking. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC) ... Dalby clarifies in Food in the Ancient World from A to Z that those were indeed the terms used by the Greeks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Found a source: Manniche, Lisa (1999) Sacred Luxuries: Fragrance, Aromatherapy, and Cosmetics in Ancient Egypt, Cornell University Press ISBN 0801437202 p. 21. Your guesswork was right on the money. Both J. oxycedrus and J. excelsa were in King Tut's tomb. J. excelsa hasn't been found in other tombs; J. oxycedrus and J. phoenicea both have been frequently. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I knows my junipers . . . they could have imported both from as close as Lebanon, more in Ancient Egypt's sphere of influence than Greece. - MPF 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing, I see I have overstated what my sources actually assert about the Greece / Egypt connection. I'm working on the para now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections?

The article is a one big chunk of text, maybe a section or two culd help making it more digest? Circeus 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, tho' it would be nice to keep it to not more than 3 headers in total (so the page doesn't have to have one of those silly blue boxes messing up the layout) - MPF 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There's always __NOTOC__. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of us like TOCs.--Curtis Clark 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References before or after periods

Well, the slow edit war shifting the footnotes to before or after the periods can't keep going on. I've talked some with MPF about this here on my User talk; I accept that the MOS isn't a policy or a bible, but we still need to come to a decision as to how the references will be handled in this article.

I prefer the references after the periods; it just looks better to me, and, while it may be illogical, it is in no way confusing. Keenan Pepper seems to prefer it that way too.

I would like to hear some more voices to see if there is a consensus regarding this style issue on this page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that it looks better after the punctuation. The only reason I haven't applied it (I haven't stumbled yet on aversion with references before punctuation)is thatthearticle istoo unstable and I would have to correct extra referenes on a regular basis. Circeus 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, it mirrors the debate over whether to put periods inside or outside closing quotes (an issue where British and US styles evidently differ). There, too, there is the logic argument ("Is the period part of the quote? If not, it should go outside.") and the typographic argument ("It looks better when quotes follow periods"). In this case, I both agree with MPFs logical arguments, and with the rest of you that it looks better to put the refs after the periods. Since the MoS has a preference, to me that's the tie-breaker.--Curtis Clark 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

After. (And I think it looks better if quotes follow periods when the quote ends in a period, but not otherwise ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's any confusion. Wikipedia:Footnotes#Place ref tag after punctuation is quite clear. If you don't like it, take it up on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, not individual articles. —Keenan Pepper 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The page is a guideline, not a policy, and not a straightjacket. However, consensus among those currently interested in this page seems quite clear, so there shouldn't be a problem in any case. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken it up on the Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, but unfortunately it seems to be a long-running thing (having subsequently looked through the archives there) which repeatedly gets requested by many different users (often with with style guide or example references), and always gets stamped on by a small cabal of 3 or 4 contributors who seem hell-bent on enforcing the Chigago style, always finding some excuse or other to reject the validity of examples cited. Having made that rant, I'll however accept the current use here (despite it looking very illogical having the footnote markers at the start of the subsequent sentence) - MPF 08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I would recommend that this article include some external links, and maybe some see also. If that happened I would approve it for good article status.--Esprit15d 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You think See Also sections make an article better? I think they're what happens when people are too lazy to work the linkages into prose. And not that I much care for or about the whole GA thing, but would you care to point me to where in the GA criteria it says you should have external links? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{Herbs & spices}}, which is sort of a giant "See Also". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)