Talk:Banana/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Misleading statistics

There are several discussions in the archives about misleading statistics, which need to be reviewed before updating the production and expert tables in the article. Here is one comment:

The table showing the major producers and the production figures is erroneous. Some countries divide up production between "bananas" and "plantains"; others do not. In particular, India, China and the Philippines do not, treating all production as "bananas", so the figures given for these countries were actually for "bananas" + "plantains" (in India and the Philippines, at least, most production is likely to be the latter, based on other sources). However, Uganda does divide its statistics, so did not appear in the table, although its total production in 2011 makes it second in the world. I am working on a table which combines "bananas" and "plantains" where these are divided so that countries are being compared like for like. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This remains true.

• The article is about bananas in the broad sense, i.e. both dessert bananas, just called "bananas" in some countries, and cooking bananas, called "plantains" in some countries. The statistics need to be based on the topic.
• Countries differ in whether they divide up their data by "bananas" vs. "plantains" or not.
• The FAO simply aggregates the data it is supplied with. So when it adds up "bananas" it's like adding up apples and oranges: India and China, for example, do not separate out 486 Bananas from 489 Plantains and others; Ecuador, for example, does.
• There's no way of telling what the world production of "bananas", meaning "dessert bananas" is, or what the world production of "plantains" is, because the statistics are not distinguished in major producing countries. This is explained here.
• So either:
  • We construct tables separately for those countries which use both codes 486 and 489 and those that use only 486.
  • We aggregate data for codes 486 and 489.

Anything else is simply statistical illiteracy.

The FAO explanation of the codes linked above says: "Figures on bananas refer, as far as possible, to all edible fruit-bearing species of the genus Musa except Musa paradisiaca, commonly known as plantain. Unfortunately, several countries make no distinction in their statistics between bananas and plantains and publish only overall estimates. When this occurs and there is some indication or assumption that the data reported refer mainly to bananas, the data are included." This is problematic for a number of reasons, including the fact that Musa × paradisiaca is not the scientific name for 'plantains' alone. 'Plantains' are a staple food in parts of India, so making the "assumption" that the data reported refers to 'bananas' is doubtful.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph that "the US produces few bananas" is ridiculous. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. It is no more encyclopedic to state that England produces few bananas or that Russia produces few bananas. It's appropriate for the article to mention countries that are major producers of bananas. It's not appropriate to list countries that don't produce bananas in significant quantities in terms of world production, have never produced bananas in large quantities, and that no reader with even basic knowledge of the world would expect to be a major producer of bananas. Yes, we have no bananas. So what? Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: I agree entirely. However, I've learned from experience that (a) the majority of editors are from the US (I'm not) (b) US editors regard facts about the US as very important compared to facts about the rest of the world. So I'm happy to let a US editor remove it and then deal with any consequences. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

So that it's not a complete non sequitur, I've added info about the US import of bananas, which is significant at 27% of all international trade in bananas. The production numbers can serve as a contrast. I was tempted to say something like this:

"Canada also produces few bananas. A mere seven bananas were grown in Canada in 2001." Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: that explains something that has long puzzled me: bananas are among the fruit that Canadian customs is hot on not allowing you to bring into Canada. Southern US I would understand, but I had always assumed that neither bananas nor banana pests would survive the Canadian winter, but it seems I was wrong. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand Peter's discussion (and table construction) from 4 years ago, and his apprehension about the data being specifically for bananas vs. aggregated with plantains, but the re-established discussion on production is diffuse, off-topic in places, and outdated, presenting a convoluted, unhelpful section for the typical user, and stimulating my edit yesterday to simplify with FAO's most recent data. I think we could present clearer general information by having 2014 production tables each for bananas and plantains, with footnotes and/or text description of the FAO numbers in context. The export data can also be explained more simply without a table, in my opinion. I don't see why minor producers like the USA need mention at all; WP:WEIGHT. --Zefr (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zefr: I'm certainly not defending all the text, just the need for great care in presenting the table. I've downloaded the recent raw production data to a spreadsheet, and I'm working on presenting it in a couple of different ways, posting it here for comment first. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Revised table draft

I haven't double-checked or fully tidied up the table below, but this is another way of presenting the 2014 production data, with notes explaining that some countries split into "bananas" and "plantains" while others do not. Note that blank entries do not mean "no production" – some countries not in the table have 0 in corresponding places – but that no return was made under this category, which may mean that the other category was used for all kinds of bananas/plantains.

2014 Production data in millions of tonnes

Country	Bananas	Plantains	Total
India	29.7		29.7
China, mainland	11.8		11.8
Philippines	8.9		8.9
Ecuador	6.8	0.8	7.5
Brazil	7.0		7.0
Indonesia	6.9		6.9
Cameroon	1.7	3.9	5.6
Colombia	1.8	3.5	5.2
Uganda	0.6	4.6	5.2
Ghana	0.1	3.8	3.9
Guatemala	3.6	0.2	3.8
United Republic of Tanzania	3.2	0.6	3.8
Angola	3.5		3.5
Nigeria		3.0	3.0
Peru	0.2	2.1	2.4
Costa Rica	2.2	0.1	2.3
Rest of the world	26.3	8.1	34.4

I've included countries whose production rounds to >1% of the world total.

The alternative is to just update the table in the article at present. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer a simple table of only the top 6 together with a world total, giving explanation for the Ecuador plantains in the footnote. The other producers and more specific plantains information can be given generally in 2-3 sentences. Thanks for the work. --Zefr (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter coxhead: 2016 FAO data on production are available now, both official and by "imputation methods". Can we refresh the table revisions to provide the most recent information? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr: if by "we" you mean me, I've put it on my to-do list, but I'm working on the WGSRPD flora distribution categories at present. If you mean "do I think it's a good idea for you to do this", then the answer is yes! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I propose a shorter list, so have trimmed from yours above. Encouraging collaboration to check the numbers. --Zefr (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

2016 Production data in millions of tonnes

Country	Bananas	Plantains	Total
India	29.1		29.1
China, mainland	13.1		13.1
Philippines	5.8	3.1	8.9
Ecuador	6.5	0.6	7.1
Indonesia	7.0		7.0
Brazil	6.8		6.8
Colombia	2.0	3.5	5.5
Cameroon	1.2	4.3	5.5
Uganda	0.6	3.7	4.3
Ghana	0.09	4.0	4.1
Guatemala	3.8	0.3	4.1
World	113.3	35.1	148.4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6C3gSxUtN?url=http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Musa/index.html to http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Musa/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. --Zefr (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028180601/http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/109881 to http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/109881
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407090355/http://banana-networks.org/bapnet/files/2012/11/Risk-Assessment-EAHB1.pdf to http://banana-networks.org/bapnet/files/2012/11/Risk-Assessment-EAHB1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bananas as "curved yellow fruit"

http://www.funnysigns.net/files/banana-curved-yellow-fruit.jpg http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/113.jpg https://h2savecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/screen-shot-2011-07-29-at-3.02.06-pm.png http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CruOaIsWYAA4bK-.jpg

As seen in these pictures above, bananas in some albeit very few locations can be called "curved yellow fruits". This is why I put that info on this page, and also why I redirected Curved yellow fruit to this page. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And this information is noteworthy because...? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add the following topic in the See also section

• List of banana cultivars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.16.249 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Is linked three (!) times in the article itself, so WP:SEEALSO says it should not also be a see-also. It is also in a full navbox in the end-of-page material. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

The Jalgaon district produces more than 16% of Indian's bananas which adds up to 3% of the world's banana production. According to the Maharashtra Stats Banana Producers Co-operative Federation, 66% of total cultivation in the state happens in the Jalgaon district.[5] Rushabhdhake10 (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? Where is the Jalgaon district ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Weasel wording in 'Racist symbol' section

Section starts off

"There is a long racist history of describing people of African descent as being more like monkeys than humans, and due to the assumption in popular culture..."

This is passively weasel-worded to avoid informing the reader who the parties are, who have described people of African descent thus. For the sake of honesty, and ending wikipedia's world-famous dishonesty always on display for the world to see, it should be changed to:

"There is a history of white supremacists, especially from Nazi Germany, describing people of African descent as being more like..."

71.246.152.152 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish it were so, i.e. that only "white supremacists", described people of African descent thus. Unfortunately it's more wide-spread than that. Try Googling "football banana incident". Throwing bananas onto the pitch when the opposing team has black players has a substantial history in Europe, and I doubt that the 'supporters' involved are "white supremacists", just bog-standard racists. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I was suggesting what the sources provided can substantiate, but at any rate, it is passively weasel-worded to avoid informing the reader who the parties are. Can this be changed? 71.246.152.152 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Then point to those sources, and show how they substantiate what you claim. This seems like soapboxing, and carries an aroma of Righting Great Wrongs, neither of which have a place on Wikipedia. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources already used in the article after that statement. So seriously, you feel this should remain passively weasel-worded to avoid informing the reader who the parties are, [[User:Just plain Bill? I may need to call an RFC 71.246.152.152 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

So we start with Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Isidore of Seville, yes, and go on from there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If I close my good eye just the right amount, I can sort of see that Isidore might have some tenuous bearing on this, but the relevance of Gregory of Nazianus eludes me.

71.246..., you've pointed at two sources, but not yet shown how they support your claim that it's only white supremacists tossing bananas onto football fields, not just bog-standard racists. You may frame my attitude however you like, with a much better than even chance of missing the mark. Show specifically how your sources support your thesis, instead of chucking ad hominem straw men around. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Wulf D. Hund, University of Hamburg and Charles W Mills, Northwestern University say that those two saints compared pagans to monkeys. The Douglas Belchoir report gets a mention of Hitler pretty early on. 19:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Martinevans123 (talk)

You can phrase it however you like per the sources already provided, but the sentiment should be attributed to someone and not left so ambiguous and weaselly, which is what weasel means on this project. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please suggest your reword here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't write 'bog-standard racists' in the article, I am not even sure what that connotes precisely so doubt it is helpful, can you rephrase that more encyclopedically? 71.246.152.152 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have a real problem with that sentence in the article, please could you suggest here what you think might be a suitable alternative wording. You said it would be based on those two existing sources. Please go right ahead. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I am suggesting something like 'bog-standard racists' if you can make that meaningful and translate it to more understandable and encyclopedic language. Otherwise, just go with what's actually in the sources. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to go "just go with what's actually in the sources." You're the one with the problem here? Suggest an alternative, then we can discuss it. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

So what does 'bog-standard racists' mean? 71.246.152.152 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that phrase appears in either of those two sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

OK I am looking again, the second source mentions "the supremacy of the Arian race by Hitler" and doesn't name anyone else. The first source relevant to the article topic banana says only "To throw bananas in front of black sportspeople is a common racist provocation even today" but it traces erroneous comparisons of blacks and apes from 1570 and mentions (pseudo) scientific racism, social darwinism, and colonialism among the culprits, so perhaps we could work out some combination from those. No, they do not say 'bog standard racists' if that is the same thing. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The only really pertinent fact here is that bananas are associated with monkeys and because of that they have been used in racist incidents to say, essentially, "you are black and therefore you are a monkey". But I think the history and sociology of racism is somewhat too large a topic to be dealt with adequately in article about bananas. Any expansion of that section would seem to be a bit misplaced? By all means suggest a reword of the existing sentence, but a deeper analysis of racism is not really needed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Precisely, and why I chose to suggest (relying on the two sources) "There is a history of white supremacists, especially from Nazi Germany, describing people of African descent as being more like..." to avoid the weasel wording. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This would be "weasel wording" indeed; it would suggest that only white supremacists, especially from Nazi Germany, described people of African descent in this way, and that such descriptions were confined to a small number of extremists, whereas it's absolutely clear from a wide range of sources that this description has been used much, much more widely through time and by many people in Europe and elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think modern racist incidents involving bananas can be directly traced to the Nazis, or to Eugène and his mates, then I'd suggest you are sadly mistaken. Nor do I think that either of those two sources are strong enough to demonstrate any direct connection. Maybe you think this song is blatantly racist? In which case, it seems Harry Belafonte must have been in on the act. Which would be quite ironic. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That does not follow logically since I said nothing whatsoever about Belafonte. I am missing your point. I am merely going by what the sources provided would suggest to me trying to figure out why the article does not mention a subject. How are "bog-standard racists" not expressing that they see other races as inferior and their own as superior? If you could explain the distinction in logical English I may begin to understand why you cannot just fill in the blank with the correct answer. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In US English, I think "garden-variety racists" comes pretty close, with maybe less grimy connotation than "bog standard." What it entails in this context is that white supremacists are a subset of racists in general. The assertion that banana tossers are racists seems well-sourced. That they are white supremacists or mostly so, not so much. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm failing to see any blanks in the article that need filling in. I think it's apparent that you don't like the phrase "bog-standard racists". But no one has suggested adding that to the article, have they? I'm suggesting that this "article does not mention a subject" because it's meant to be about bananas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The article WP:WEASEL-ly throws out a nebulous idea in weasel language that blacks be likened to apes. It is known that blacks themselves do not see it that way. And neither do I. And those who do, I think, are a minority of whites with mental hang-ups or who subscribe to colonialism, social darwinism, and pseudo science. Your display of not just ascribing the opinion to them that hold it and just leaving it nebulous, is astounding. I guess it means I will have to see if an RFC can bring in more views. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

So those are the four exclusive categories there, are they? No objections to an RFC. But unless you can actually propose exactly some new wording that is less WP:WEASEL-ly, I think the whole exercise would probably be a complete waste of time. I'm still not sure why an article on bananas has to examine the sociological underpinnings of racism. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Probably some overlap, not exclusive categories... But I am not suggesting an examination of the sociological underpinnings, only that the subject be defined briefly and accurately per the sources and not left a weasel. 'White supremacists' ought to fit since they are portraying blacks as inferior. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many other ways there are for me to say this. So I'm giving up here after this. And I know that Wikipedia not a WP:RS.... but I'm just not seeing the word "banana" at White supremacy, ok? Good luck with the RFC. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This articles states nebulously in violation of WP:WEASEL that there is an idea of some people likening blacks to apes. Readers will naturally want to know who thinks this idea, and find it odd that it doesn't say whose idea it can be attributed to. I am learning more about you personally from your responses to me but still cannot understand or see any logic in it. Is there something to your perspective I am failing to share with you to be able to see it your way? 71.246.152.152 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Trying again, with love and patience

This articles states nebulously in violation of WP:WEASEL that there is an idea of some people likening blacks to apes. Readers will naturally want to know who thinks this idea, and find it odd that it doesn't say whose idea it can be attributed to. I am learning more about you personally from your responses to me but still cannot understand or see any logic in it. Is there something to your perspective I am failing to share with you to be able to see it your way?

I have plenty of time and intend to continue every day if necessary until actual honest non-evasive answers are forthcoming. The above exchange will be used some day as a textbook example of the evasive attitudes of wikipedians in 2018 regarding the systemic bias problems wikipedia is widely notorious for, and I would be ashamed for those editors to have anything to do with the way I was treated above. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, please follow WP:AGF and do not accuse me, or other editors, of giving dishonest, evasive answers, as you have above.

Secondly, what you don't appear to understand is that to say, as you appear to wish to do, that using bananas as a way of denigrating or upsetting black people is the action of white supremacists and/or Nazis is to evade the issue and minimize the widespread nature of this behaviour. If anything is "weasel", this would be. Of course we could add many examples of such behaviour, with sources – did you actually try the Google search I suggested above? It's been all too common at European football matches for supporters of one side to throw bananas on the pitch or engage in monkey chants when there are African origin people in the opposing side. The article is clear that using bananas in this way is racist. Where is your source that says that such people behaving in this way are necessarily either white supremacists or Nazi-influenced? No-one disputes that white supremacists and/or Nazis may behave in this way; what is disputed is that all instances of this behaviour are due to white supremacists and/or Nazis.

This article is about bananas. All that is relevant here is to note the use of bananas to symbolize a racist attitude by connecting African origin people to monkeys or apes. The article gives this due prominence in my view, in an appropriate manner, without attempting to imply that only a small minority of extremists behave in this way.

I really don't see any way of explaining more clearly! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As i said already, this exchange WILL be used some day as a textbook example of the evasive attitudes of wikipedians in 2018 regarding the systemic bias problems wikipedia is widely notorious for, and I would be ashamed for those editors to have anything to do with the way I was treated above. I would especially be ashamed of the patronizing and condescending tone you in particular have adopted toward me, User:Peter coxhead, in your staunch defense of wikipedia's refusal to explain the blatant WP:WEASEL of just throwing it out there unattributed that mysterious unnamed parties consider blacks inferior as monkeys. These parties should be identified as accurately as possible and the sources allow us to do so where wikipedia itself will not. If a few unfortunate bigoted whites consider blacks inferior as monkeys, that to English speakers is the very definition of "white supremacist" (obviously if you think they are inferior you think of yourself as superior) but this simple definition seems to be an issue that you have difficulty elaborating on why that is not white supremacist in your apologetic eyes, User:Peter coxhead. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If attempting to explain patiently and clearly is "patronizing and condescending", then I plead guilty. The core issue remains your idea that it involves a few unfortunate bigoted whites, whereas I have told you that if you search you can easily see that it's much more widespread than your wording implies.

As you are still not assuming good faith on my part, I don't intend to engage with you any more. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And have you adressed why treating blacks as inferior would not be the literal very definition of "white supremacist"? No, you have evaded the central point, your comments are worthless and any good faith with you has already gone out the window because of your words. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please retract your personal attacks. I invited you three times to suggest alternative wording. You still haven't offered your improved version here for discussion. Instead you suggested opening an RFC. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested already "There is a history of white supremacists, especially from Nazi Germany, describing people of African descent as being more like..." which is definitely more than substantiated by the two sources provided, and I fail to see any coherent reason why throwing bananas at black people is not per definition "white supremacist" and I have seen only evasion of addressing this central point. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The first source makes no mention of Nazis or white supremacists? The second source makes no mention of white supremacists, and just says this about "Nazis": "Ota’s case served to inflame beliefs around the supremacy of the Arian race defended by Hitler."? Or are there some other references I have missed? I'd also be grateful if you could retract your personal attacks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"the supremacy of the Arian race..." Can you read what you pasted? are you going to tell me baldfacedly that does not justify "white supremacist" which also covers the colonialists and social darwinists as fully explained in the first source. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I can read what I pasted. That's you personal WP:SYNTH. There are other White Supremacists who are not German Nazis. As other editors have tried to point out to you, on numerous occasions, bananas are used in racist insults by many who would not accurately be described as "Nazis" or "white supremacists", e.g. football fans. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources make plain that the meaning is to suggest blacks are inferior and monkeylike, which is always the meaning no matter what race describes another that way. You seem to be in serious psychological denial of this and want to read it in a source, which says the same thing, and then having read it you still want to pretend otherwise. If a football fan same as any other white throws bananas to call a black a monkey and inferior, then the football fan is indeed displaying white supremacism as we can gather from the sources. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet again the personal attacks with "serious psychological denial". Please stop. Your argument, based on a single sentence from a single translated source, that uses the word "Hitler", now seems to be that because football fans throw bananas, they are "displaying white supremacism" and are therefore de facto white supremacists. So we have come full circle there. Good luck with your RFC. Goodbye for a second time. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You obviously believe that football fans who throw bananas at blacks "aren't white supremacist, they just call blacks inferior" (which is the same thing). Shame on you. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay which may help you understand how Wikipedia works. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No, in all honesty that is not terribly helpful, [[User:Just plain Bill. What would be helpful is an honest explanation of how any editor here can seriously pretend with a straight face that comparing blacks to monkeys and tossing bananas at them is not "white supremacist", if the perpetrator happens to be a football fan. But I am certain you are unable to provide any explanation. That link does not help me to uinderstand why at all. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I had hoped that it might help you understand how your say-so is not enough to justify conflating banana-tossing rubes with white supremacists in the text of an article on the fruit. Your "certainty" makes it seem as if you are impervious to explanation; consider that "Righting Great Wrongs" as linked above is a section of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. If you can understand that Wikipedia is not the place for promoting passionately held opinions, there may yet be hope. ciao, Just plain Bill (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Impervious to explanation? I'm still awaiting a coherent explanation. You and other editors have made the unbelievable case that whites who throw bananas at blacks are not "white supremacist" if they are football fans but are in some separate as-yet ill-defined category you call "bog-standard racists". I don't know what language, dialect or slang "bog-standard" is or what it implies so it does not help me understand. But the very sources given convince me that this is from a belief that blacks are inferior to whites. Now what term in conventional English would you use to describe a worldview that blacks are inferior to whites, regardless of if the holder is a football fan or whatever? (Hint: "White supremacist") 71.246.152.152 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The broader term racist would probably reconcile the issue here. Instead of labeling these widespread football fans as "white supremacists" (this assumes that all football fans who do this are white, but that's not necessarily true), this act is unambiguously racist. That's a term that would still adequately highlight the disgusting nature of the act but not confine them to the group(s) that are white supremacist, pro-Aryan, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. So that would make the proposal "There is a history of racists describing people of African descent as being more like..." which at least has a subject. I hope that would be acceptable to remedy the weasel issue. 71.246.152.152 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

I suggest you remove indication that Thai bananas are new modified variety that is safe to eat on Wikipedia. These bananas are NOT safe for transport into the USA and are unwanted and unwelcomed in North America. 96.255.91.48 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see this information in the article, please clarify. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this because they are inhabited by the spirit Nang Tani? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Banana

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Banana's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "faostat":

• From International wheat production statistics: FAOSTAT Archived 2013-01-14 at the Wayback Machine
• From Coconut: "Crops". FAOSTAT. Retrieved 2018-08-24. Countries - Select All; Regions - World + (Total); Elements - Production Quantity; Items - Coconuts; Years - 2016

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Bananas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Bananas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bananas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

nuclear communication

"The banana equivalent dose of radiation is sometimes used in nuclear communication to compare radiation levels and exposures."

I suppose that, if this means communication or documentation related to radioactivity or nuclear physics rather than some kind of obscure or fictitious technology, it should be reflected to change that. --Porsche43 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Porsche43 - the description was confusing and under-referenced. I rewrote it and added sources here. Thanks for pointing this out. --Zefr (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019

Change:

A banana is an edible fruit

To:

A banana [Carbs 27.0 g, Fat 0.4 g, Pro 1.3 g]<ref name=SELF Nutrition Data/> is an edible fruit . . .

==References==

<ref name=SELF Nutrition Data>{{cite web |url= https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1846/2 |title= Banana, raw, 1 medium |publisher= Condé Nast |accessdate= May 10, 2019}}</ref>

Reason:

Quick information. — Aseutylbyl (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The information is clearly provided and sourced by the USDA nutrient table in the article. Unclear why this isn't quick or adequate information. --Zefr (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2019

u

Bananas are fr 2601:CB:8200:6F10:5436:5CC5:EF89:4127 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Unclear what you want done - ChrisWar666 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Double Bananas?

There isn't a second on double or twin bananas (1 peel, two bananas), but I think it's worth mentioning, maybe? I read the majority are culled for the US market though. But I'd also like a scientific explanation inserted too. --KimYunmi (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chronological dispersal of Austronesian people across the Pacific (per Bellwood in Chambers, 2008).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Add the category "Berries", as it is botanically a type of berry. 78.149.109.76 (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Berries says it's only for the culinary term. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Add a section regarding production sustainability/harmful practices

Suggested addition: "Sustainability of Production:

Harmful Practices

In order to maintain high yields for production, banana cultivation requires extensive and frequent applications of pesticides, sometimes reaching ten times as much as that used in industrial agriculture (McCracken, 1998) and it is not uncommon for bananas to require more pesticides than other crops due their thick peels. The pesticides applied are often used despite known detrimental effects on workers and wildlife, as many chemicals still widely used are banned in countries such as the U.S. and even listed on the Pesticide Action Network's list of "Dirty Dozen" (McCracken, 1998). Pesticides such as DBCP, which was banned by the U.S. in 1977, has been linked to sterility in men yet is still used by Del Monte Fruit, Chiquita brands, and Dole food in at least 12 countries (Hays, 2011). The chemical Chlordecone was used until 2002 in Guadalupe and Martinique and contributed to a very high level of prostate cancer where 1 in 2 men is likely to have developed it from long-term exposure to the illegal chemical (Hays, 2011).

The excessive use of fertilizers often left in abandoned plantations contributes greatly to eutrophication in local streams and lakes and harms aquatic like after algal blooms deprive fish of oxygen, and it has been theorized that destruction of 60% of coral reefs along the coasts of Costa Rica is partially from sediments from banana plantations (Cohen, 2009).

Another issue is the deforestation associated with expanding banana production. As monocultures rapidly deplete soil nutrients plantations expand to areas with rich soils and cut down forests, which also affects soil erosion and degradation, and increases frequency of flooding (Cohen, 2009).

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) stated that banana production produced more waste than any other agricultural sector, mostly from discarded banana plants, bags used to cover the bananas, strings to tie them, and containers for transport (Cohen, 2009).

Sustainable Practices

The organization Banana Link was established to make real changes in the lives and well-being of people working with bananas and improve the social equality and health of the banana industry. They include the description of organic farming, created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, as a helpful practice to improving the banana industry through environmentally sustainable practices.

There also exist fair trade standards, voluntary sustainable practices like organic farming, and certifications such as the ISO 14001 certification that can be obtained to improve the banana industry and how it treats workers and the environment. "

References: Cohen, R. (2009, June 12). GLOBAL ISSUES FOR BREAKFAST: THE BANANA INDUSTRY AND ITS PROBLEMS FAQ (COHEN MIX). SCQ. https://www.scq.ubc.ca/global-issues-for-breakfast-the-banana-industry-and-its-problems-faq-cohen-mix/

The Problem With Banans | Environmental & Social Issues in the Trade. (n.d.). Banana Link. Retrieved May 8, 2020, from https://www.bananalink.org.uk/the-problem-with-bananas/

Hays, J. (2011). BANANAS—: THEIR HISTORY, CULTIVATION AND PRODUCTION | Facts and Details. http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat54/sub343/item1577.html

McCracken, C. (1998). Banana Plantations in Central America. http://members.tripod.com/foro_emaus/BanPlantsCA.htm

Organic agriculture | World Banana Forum | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). Retrieved May 8, 2020, from http://www.fao.org/world-banana-forum/projects/good-practices/organic-farming/en/

Kevwilk1 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening as an edit request since this didn't get a response. I think the Banana Link isn't worth mentioning but the other section could probably be added. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have edited and added the harmful practices section as a "Sustainability" heading. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"BANANA" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BANANA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#BANANA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

change gm to g (for the standard abbreviation of gram) 2001:690:2100:110:A83E:A2F3:7026:EEC6 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020

Other uses "Banana for Scale" is an expression indicating that a banana has been placed in the frame of a photograph to reveal the true-to-life size of another object on display in relative scale. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/banana-for-scale Esymes (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, use a better source than knowyourmeme.com ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Banana cultivation among aboriginal australians

Can someone this? It is pretty important for history and legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathornis (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Largest bunch

I added this:

"According to Guinness World Records, the largest bunch of bananas contained 473 individual bananas, was grown by Kabana SA and Tecorone SL (Spain) on the island of El Hierro, Canary Islands, Spain and weighed 130 kilograms (290 lb) on 11 July 2001."

But this was removed by User:Zefr, with the edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Martinevans123 (talk): Outdated trivia, not a 'use'". I'd agree that it's not a 'use', but I'm not sure where else it could go. I'd dispute that it is trivia or outdated. If it is outdated, I'd be happy to see a more recent record added. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Systematics of bananas

The taxonomic systematics of bananas, wild as well as cultivars, deserves a separate article with a good synopsis in this article. The taxonomy section of this article indicates that it is a complex subject, in particular for cultivars but that does not make a comprehensive article (with indications of significant uncertainties) less desirable. There are numerous indications of different bananas and banana groups in this article as well as in articles on banana pests but no systematic information. 150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In theory, yes, this is a good idea. In practice, it would be a great deal of work, because the history of banana taxonomy is complex, tangled and sometimes disputed. It's a job for either someone with a lot of time or an expert in the area. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for Banana page edits

Under "Sustainability" I would suggest putting "Bananas are the fourth most important crop behind wheat, rice and maize because developing countries produce over ninety percent of them." after "Bananas and plantains constitute a major staple food crop for millions of people in developing countries. In many tropical countries, green (unripe) bananas used for cooking represent the main cultivars." This edit is to highlight how popular bananas are worldwide and how they come primarily from developing countries.

Under "Production and Import" I would recommend putting "Approximately 5.6 million hectares are dedicated to banana production in 2017. So from 1993 to 2000 banana production grew from 3.6 million hectares to 4.6 million hectares." after "In 2017, world production of bananas and plantains combined was 153 million tonnes, led by India and China with a combined total of 27% of global production." This edit will give readers an idea has to how much banana production has grown and explain how unsustainable they have become.

Under "Sustainability" I would recommend putting "Another controversy with banana production is the overuse of pesticides that can be harmful to farmers and the local environment." after "The excessive use of fertilizers often left in abandoned plantations contributes greatly to eutrophication in local streams and lakes, and harms aquatic life after algal blooms deprive fish of oxygen." because pesticides can be just as damaging to the environment as fertilizers.

Under "Sustainability" I would recommend putting "The sad reality is that the farmer who does most of the work receives the least amount of money in the banana trade." after "Voluntary sustainability standards such as Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade are increasingly being used to address some of these issues." because it highlights how farmers and plantation workers receive the least amount of money from banana production while putting in countless hours of work.

Under "Sustainability" I would suggest putting "Banana plantation workers do not receive ample compensation. In a way this contributes to poverty rather than solving it. Sadly many plantation workers handle harmful chemicals needed to protect the crop. This is where a fair trade program makes sense. With a decent program many of these plantation workers could finally receive the proper compensation for their work. Plantation workers receive only 1 to 3% of the banana’s retail value." after ". Bananas production certified by such sustainability standards experienced a 43% compound annual growth rate from 2008 to 2016, to represent 36% of banana exports.[84]" because it again highlights how plantation workers contribute to the banana trade while receiving the least shore from the profits. This suggestion fits under sustainability because it touches on poverty and the problems plaguing the banana trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholt92 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

All information added to this or any article needs a source. Do sources say exactly what you want added? Regardless we can't include opinions/editorial comments material like This is where a fair trade program makes sense. With a decent program many of these plantation workers could finally receive the proper compensation for their work. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Bananas are the fourth most important crop behind wheat, rice and maize because developing countries produce over ninety percent of them" seems like a non-sequitur. The criteria for importance are subjective, but production of potatoes and soya dwarfs (Wikipedia) that of bananas, and production of manioc (also a staple in developing countries) comfortably exceeds it. Furthermore when considering which are the most important crops non-food crops such as cotton should be considered. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Banana Sustainability: No introduction

1. Sustainability section, The sustainability section introduction did not include an introduction. It went straight to speaking about how fertilizers, without introducing the section. So, I wanted to include an introduction that was a sentence or two.

a. Before: “The excessive use of fertilizers often left in abandoned plantations contributes greatly to eutrophication in local streams and lakes, and harms aquatic life al blooms deprive fish of oxygen.”

b. After: Sustainable practices in banana farming alleviate deforestation, eutrophication, diseases, soil erosion, waste, and a host of other problems. The lack of sustainability in banana farming not only harms the environment, but also the species and humans who are consuming the bananas. The two major problems in banana farming regarding sustainability are the use of fertilizers and a monocultural system of growing. “The excessive use of fertilizers often left in abandoned plantations contributes greatly to eutrophication in local streams and lakes, and harms aquatic life al blooms deprive fish of oxygen.”

Merna966 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sustainability Section: Sustainable solutions

4. Sustainability section, Finally I wanted to include some sustainable solutions in the environmental space. This will be added at the end of the paragraph.

a. Before: “As awareness is being raised about the hugely negative environmental impacts of mono-crop banana plantations, an increasing number of exporters are choosing to harvest more environmentally friendly fruit by limiting chemical usage on their plants.”

b. After: “As awareness…” Environmental work has been bringing awareness to these human and environmental impacts that many companies are deciding to limit the use of chemical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merna966 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Entomology section: include Spanish history

5. Entomology section, I want to add some information about the Spanish word for bananas and plantation, because that is where English derived its name for plantains from.

a. Before: “The word banana is thought to be of West African origin, possibly from the Wolof word banana and passed into English via Spanish or Portuguese.”

b. After: “…. Spanish or Portuguese.” In the English language, the word plantain is used to refer solely to plantains. Whilst, in the Spanish language, the word planta no is used to refer to bananas and plantains. --Merna966 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gyaredos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Plantains and bananas aren’t the same

In this article is said that bananas used for boiling are call plantains and that isn’t true 2601:196:181:1940:9982:C199:7F4D:8CCD (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Bananus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bananus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Bananus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Trees

The USDA classifies bananas as a tree. https://plants.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=MUAC The tree page on wikipedia goes into great detail about definitions of trees and how bananas meet many modern definitions of trees. It is not right to say they are "mistaken" for trees simply because of one old, no longer accepted, restricted definition of trees published in 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentilcore (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Banana Radiation

"Banana equivalent radiation dose" section, we find: "emits about 15 becquerels or 0.1 micro-sieverts (units of radioactivity exposure)". This is incoherent - a becquerel is *rate* of radiation, while a sievert is a quantity - they cannot be equated. A dose rate in becquerels is dependent on the position of the banana relative to the recipient, and the dose in sieverts is dependent on the length of time of exposure as well as the position. This requires more work to elucidate. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:CC01:6F49:4268:AFF1 (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader

"User:Ganeshk/sandbox/CSVTest/banana" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect User:Ganeshk/sandbox/CSVTest/banana and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#User:Ganeshk/sandbox/CSVTest/banana until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of math incorrectly

The phrase "forty times less" is ambiguous. Literally, 40 times less than X is -39X. Clearly, this is not intended. "One-fourtieth as much as" is clear and mathematically accurate. 173.169.179.205 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree - rewrote the section with this edit. Zefr (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Sustainability section: How do fertilizers affect humans?

2. Sustainability section, I appreciate the section mentioning the harms that fertilizer has on aquatic life, but I think that there should also be some instances where it includes how it affects humans also.

a. Before: “The excessive use of fertilizers often left in abandoned plantations contributes greatly to eutrophication in local streams and lakes, and harms aquatic life after algal blooms deprive fish of oxygen.”

b. After: The excessive use of fertilizers often left in abandoned plantations contributes greatly to eutrophication in soil and harms human and aquatic life when fertilizers seep into local streams.

Also, how does it affect non-aquatic animals. Land animals? --Saraknowsthings (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)saraknowsthings (talk) September 25, 2022.

Other micronutrients in bananas - why is potassium not significant?

Currently in the Nutrition section it says "and moderate amounts of vitamin C, manganese and dietary fiber, with no other micronutrients in significant content (see table)."

Looking at the table, vitamin C is 10% DV and manganese is 13%. Potassium is 8%. Why is potassium not considered a micronutrient in significant content? Bananas may not be as good of a source of potassium as popularly believed, but surely 8% DV of potassium is a significant amount if vitamin C is considered significant at 10% DV. KyleRego (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Micronutrient contents less than 10% of the Daily Value are considered below the "good" or "moderate" source level, and therefore are too minimal to mention. The general guide established by the FDA (the leading regulatory agency to define micronutrient contents for manufacturers and consumers by establishing a food label guide) is: 10-19% DV = "good" source; 20% or more = "high" or "rich" source. There is no description for a food's micronutrient content when less than 10%. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding food to culture section

I have added a new type of food to the 'Culture' section. I am confident that there are no issues with its inclusion. However, I am curious to know why it was removed. I would appreciate any feedback on whether I have made an error by adding this new food item.

Akramgl1479 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)