Talk:Banana/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Banana Trade

"Bananas and plantains constitute a major staple food crop for millions of people in developing countries." I would argue that bananas are also a major staple food crop in "developed" countries, as countries like the United States, arguably one of the first "developed" countries in the world, consumes more bananas per year than apples and oranges combined.

"The banana has an extensive trade history beginning with the founding of the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita) at the end of the nineteenth century." The history of the banana trade traces further back than the founding of the United Fruit company as the world’s first commercial banana company was called Boston Fruit, the precursor to United Fruit . It was during Boston Fruit’s expansion of the banana market in the United States that key technological innovations such as refrigerated shipping was invented through the use of ice blocks. Such an innovation was crucial to the eventual boom of bananas in the American market because bananas are inherently difficult to transport without any means of controlling their ripening rate. (Samanlau (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

Plantains

Musa acuminata, the plantain (pronounced /ˈplæntən/) is a crop in the genus Musa and is generally used for cooking, in contrast to the soft, sweet banana (which is sometimes called the dessert banana).

The population of North America was first introduced to the banana plantain, and in the United States and Europe "banana" generally refers to that variety. The word "banana" is often used (some would say incorrectly, although there is no formal botanical distinction between bananas and plantains) to describe other plantain varieties, and names may reflect local uses or characteristics of varieties: cooking plantain, banana plantain, beer banana, bocadillo plantain (the little one), etc. All members of the genus Musa are indigenous to the tropical regions of Southeast Asia and Oceania, including the (redundant term) Malay Archipelago (modern Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines) and northern Australia.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.166.244 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Banana blossom vs. banana heart

Are these two the same thing? In Filipino stores one can find packets of stringy yellow "blossoms" labeled as such usually in the spice section while in the produce section one finds the artichoke-like banana hearts. Even if they are one and the same which is something I am uncertain about and probably needs a source, the difference in the stage of development from a culinary perspective changes their use and that should probably be clarified. Lambanog (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

evolutionary ?

The peel is not edible and you need to have hands to peel a banana (it does peel itself but then the banana core is rotten). What evolutionary history is behind that? Are bananas eaten by higher primates, while protecting themselves against insects? --88.74.185.126 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you assuming that bananas exist solely for the purpose of humans - can you make the same analogy for the evolution of skin? We do not automatically peel open when we are ripe, and therefore what is the possible evolutionary history behind skin? leorklier--Leor klier (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've watched a parrot peel and eat a banana by standing on one leg on a perch, holding the banana in the other foot, and peeling it with its beak. So banana skins to discourage invertebrates/ encourage vertebrates could in principle have an evolutionary track record going back to arborial dinosaurs/early birds; there is no need to assume a monkey monopoly!Orbitalforam (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Insert the term 'Assamese'

Original The flower of the banana plant (also known as banana blossom or banana heart)[citation needed] is used in Southeast Asian, Telugu, Tamil, and Bengali, either raw or steamed with dips or cooked in soups and curries. The flower's flavor resembles that of artichoke's. As with artichokes, both the the fleshy part of the petals and the heart are edible.

Please insert the term like this - The flower of the banana plant (also known as banana blossom or banana heart)[citation needed] is used in Southeast Asian, Assamese, Telugu, Tamil, and Bengali, either raw or steamed with dips or cooked in soups and curries. The flower's flavor resembles that of artichoke's. As with artichokes, both the the fleshy part of the petals and the heart are edible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmareshDas (talk • contribs) 10:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Bananas are yellow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heebiejeebie1 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chwazymoto, 23 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the text "They have many uses, including as umbrellas." replacing it with the text "In Latin America, the leaves are commonly used as umbrellas."

The current text is a sentence fragment, and the changes made can be cited to the same article cited already. Chwazymoto (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It used to have longer wording, which was truncated during a lengthy rewrite on Feb. 5:[1] Take a look at how I changed it just now, vs. how it read 3 1/2 months ago, and let me know which you like better. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: by Baseball Bugs (t c). Tim Pierce (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bananas are a fantastic source of potassium especially when they are almost in the state when most people would think that they are rotten. This is in fact far from the truth bananas are best to eat when they are moderatly mature. It is not a good idea to eat bananas when they are still fairly green. and another thing people might not know about bananas is that if you were to eat around 15 of them there is a good chance that you would die. due to the fact that the human body may not be able to handle such a high level of potassium. this would actually be very difficult to get close to anyway because the human body is likely to throw them all up after around 8 anyway. One example of a situation where a banana would be of a distinct advantage would be before beginning a marathon. Although the banana provides a great source of energy and natural sugars it does not take effect on the body with noticeable benefit. it is a continuous flow of slow releasing energy which in the marathon is of huge benefit to any athlete who will be depleting of their body of such supplements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pre101 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bannanna redirect

Suggestion: redirect bannanna (483,000 results via Google) to this article. Not very important, but might be user friendly. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How long does it take to grow? Different answers

• Wikianswers says 6 months to a year. Ehow(link removed because that site is blacklisted for some reason) says 10 to 15 months. The article says 6–8 months. The most common species should be listed, and perhaps list what the fastest growing species is, and the slowest growing as well. If anyone has a credible book about bananas with information in it, instead of just relying on what people put online and quote each other on. Dream Focus 06:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hypertension reduction

I have read up on some articles and news pages about how bananas can reduce hypertension in hypertensive patients do you think this deserves and edit? 86.178.147.156 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zerogirl, 16 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section Cultural Roles; Arts, it is stated that the referenced 'Uncle Josh' sketch by Cal Stewart came out in 1898. According to the source cited in footnote 28, the recording was made in 1910. Please change this accordingly. Zerogirl (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pajeboy, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I request that the last statement under section 5.4 be deleted, i.e. "Ugandans use a single word, matooke, to describe both bananas and food."

The statement is not accurate. As a Ugandan, I know that: - The banana variety called Matooke is the staple food of only the Baganda tribe, though it is popular among some other communities. - Even among the Baganda, the word for 'food' is either emmere or eby'okulya. The same words are are found and used among some of the other Bantu tribes in Uganda. Certainly, the Nilotic language groups in Uganda have different words for food. - Among the Baganda, matooke refers to only one variety of plantain, i.e. the type they use for cooking; in fact, it appears that each variety of banana is given its own name by the Baganda, e.g. mmenvu for bananito/apple banana, bogoya for Cavendish banana, gonja for a sweet variety of plantain that is baked or roasted, and several other names. - Uganda is composed of over 50 different tribes, each with its own language and culture. The tribes are grouped under at least five language groups which are unrelated, i.e. Bantu languages, Luo languages, Ateso-Ngakarimojong, West Nile languages and Sabiny. Each tribe has its own words for such a central thing as food.

Pajeboy (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done I have removed the statement as requested. It can be replaced if anyone can substantiate the claim - i wasn't able to. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Banana Skin

There's no mention of the widespread use of banana skins in slapstick comedy. Whilst this might seem minor, it seems reasonable for an encylopaedia article.Mrstonky (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Banana peels are what they are called. And I agree, it does deserve its own article. Dream Focus 23:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Trade table is incorrect, should be removed

The trade section of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana#Trade) mentions Colombia as one of the top four exporters: "The four leading exporting countries were Ecuador, Costa Rica, the Philippines, and Colombia, which together accounted for about two-thirds of exports, each contributing more than 1 million tons." However, the table of the top ~20 producers doesn't mention Colombia at all. So I checked the source (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567), and Colombia definitely is one of the top producers and should be in the table. The table is incorrect and should be removed. I would edit it myself, but the article is locked (which coincidentally, I recommend the article be unlocked). 67.87.113.82 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend creating a wikipedia account specifically for editing this article. It's as easy as choosing a username and a password and providing an email. You can use it only once if you want, or even provide a dummy throwaway email if you're concerned about privacy, either way having an account is much more sensible privacy-wise, as it prevents wikipedia from showing your IP address when making edits (the default behavior for edits by people with no accounts, necessary for blocking vandals). I would do the edit myself, but I am not very familiar with banana trade.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The trade table has been updated with UN-FAO 2009 data for most countries and 2008 data for India and Mexico, as available. This table could be less imposing in the text, if someone can adjust it to a smaller width. --Zefr (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've lessened the table width and denoted which countries use 2008 data.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Table title says 'production' but adjacent text implies these are quantities exported. Should title change production to export ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really my expertise, honestly, but I think the trade table is both for export and domestic consumption. I do know, for example, that the banana industry here in the Philippines is primarily for export. The local market prefers more local cultivars than the Cavendish grown in the larger plantations here. Feel free to tweak/correct if necessary.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Why do people keep replacing the high res pictures with low res? I thought the idea was to have the highest res photos possible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.113.186 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

They are high res. But articles use thumbnails of them to avoid crowding the text. Wikipedia is more focused on text, not on pictures. Pictures are only used when they add to the informational value of the article, and even then, they are used in such a way that they do not take the focus away from the content. Nevertheless, to access the original resolutions of the picture you only need to click the thumbnail to the file. There are usually download options available for high res pictures there.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 18:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 146.115.131.116, 16 August 2011

Delete the phrase "The distinction is purely arbitrary" from the fourth paragraph. It comes right after two sentences explaining that generally sweet ones are called banana and starchy are called plantains.

146.115.131.116 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Explaining the usage of the terms is not quite equivalent to clarifying that they are arbitrary.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bananas and half fast

Banana is the fruit which allow the more easily to practise half fast, that is to eat just enough fruits and salads to avoid deficiencies in order to reduce to a minimum the quantity of toxins taken trough food. The book The Fast, Nature’s Best Remedy by Albert Mosséri gives more informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.249.64 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

Bananas can only be sold in packs of six in the UK and Ireland. This is partially down to the myth of high potassium levels causing instantaneous death and partially down to obscure packaging laws dating back to the 1920's. However odd it may seem Bananas can only be sold in packs of six. There are exceptions to this law however. In the case of small bananas or banana chunks a potassium per pound policy is introduced. This Ridiculous law may have gone unnoticed by many but to others it is an inconvenience and a real annoyance. The law comes under the ministry of health act 1919. Back in the early 1900's expeditionary soldiers caught an awful fungal disease we now know to be called Lokos disease. The British medical profession believed at the time that it was caused by eating to many bananas. word soon spread and eventually the rumours hit the shores of Britain that 7 or eight bananas could kill and the law was made. Jenko123 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, needs references--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Misconception

It says that bananas are grown on trees but they don't. They grow on flowering herbaceous plants. If you want proof go to List of common misconceptions. Ilikepie757 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peeling the 'naners

I think there should be something about peeling the bananas. A lot of people I know don't know how to open a banana the "right way" like a monkey. Here is a youtube video about that: Open a Banana Like A Monkey

This is pretty important, since I want people to know how to open the banana the right way. --Eboyjr (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

i like bananas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Mauche (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually noticed this, and it's a shame that the banana in the main image is peeled from the stem side instead of pinched and peeled from the traditional side. How can they expect to make the iconic peel we see in cartoons and slapstick? Sakathecheetah (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Which made me remember that a few years ago I saw, on the David Letterman show, an audience member invited by Letterman to do what she said she was famous for, and that was peeling a banana with her bare feet. This charming young Australian girl did precisely that and with great dexterity too, much to the amusement of the Letterman and his audience. Myles325a (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear - there is no "right way" to peel a banana. Monkeys don't even consistently peel bananas, they'll often just kinda smash them open and eat what's inside, or bite the tops off of them. Additionally, monkeys don't have any kind of privileged knowledge about how to open bananas. Bananas, as a fruit, were essentially designed by human interference (native bananas are very different from the cavendish bananas you'd likely be familiar with) - that combined with the fact that we're the intelligent ones and they are animals makes me think that if anything we'd say that the "right" way to open a banana is to do so the way a human naturally would. That said, it's not like it was actually designed to open one way or the other, so you can cut it open with a knife, open from the bottom, open from the top, it's all the "right" way to open a banana. Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this is a pet peeve of mine. --0x0077BE (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Name Origin

Long lemon was the original name of the "banana", the name was changed on April 3, 1874 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murph19789 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What's your source for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Culture

Not sure how anyone can claim that the book Prision verde, which is entirely about banana cultivation in Honduras, isnt relevant, esp given how weak the association with bananas of so called cultural phenomena is of other examples such as "yes we have no bananas", an American song. One could not do better than read Amaya's book to understand banana cultivation in a third world and therefore it has relevance to our readers. How is this not relevant? Please contribute here before reverting again and engaging in an edit war. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I totally disagree that a description of a book that is set in a banana plantation belongs on the banana page. The book should be given the consideration of proper treatment on its own page. However, since that entire section of the page is peripheral, and will undoubtedly be removed at some point in a bold sweep by somebody, I won't revert your edit again. If the author or a serious fan of their work were to see that, I believe they might be quite distressed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope

I have reverted Mark Marathon's changes to the article. Firstly, it adds a taxobox, erroneously giving it the name Musa acuminata Colla, confusing it with only one of the wild ancestors - Musa acuminata. Colla refers to Luigi Aloysius Colla. It is a botanical author citation, and not part of the scientific name proper.

Secondly, Wikipedia also adheres to the most common usage rule, especially in ambiguous common names. When people search for "banana" they are looking for the fruit of the plants which were once known as Musa sapientum and Musa paradisiaca - now Musa acuminata, Musa balbisiana, and their cultivars. The entire article talks exclusively about these species and cultivars. Everything else also termed "bananas" are already discussed in our articles on the genus Musa and Ensete far more clearly. I have removed the sentence including Ensete ventricosum in the article for the same reason, as again it is not discussed nor included in the article's scope. However, as a concession, I have added another paragraph in the lead to point readers to the other articles. That should be enough.

Thirdly, the fact that banana is sometimes called a "tree", and why this description might be considered wrong, is already explained adequately in the previous wording. Your changes seems to favor calling it a tree, at the cost of implying that those who disagree with the terminology are wrong. I have to assume that this stems from the edit war you had in the tree article where you also seem to favor using the broadest definition of the term for the lead paragraph, despite the fact that the actual content does not do the same. Thus changing this here seems to be a tad WP:POINTy.

Lastly, the article also has enough {{fact}} tags in those paragraphs. Adding some more does not make it more likely that someone will fill them in. I suggest finding the actual sources instead of further disfiguring sentences which aren't even claiming anything that could be seen as controversial.

I'd appreciate it if you do not change it again without consensus. I'd like your explanation of your changes as well as the opinions of other editors concerning your edits. If they agree with you, I won't revert it further. Cheers.

P.S. I have also removed the book by Amador. I suggest that it be added to our article on Banana republic instead. It is far too tangential to be added here.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes. They are completely uncontroversial, and your edits have deleted 7/8 of the article for some reason. I assume this was a mistake. I'd appreciate it if you do not change it again without consensus.

Firstly, I never added any taxobox. So if you have a problem with that aspect, then edit it without altering my contributions.

Secondly, to the extent that I have any issue with the scope of the article, ( now that ensette has been removed) it is that the article purports to be about the " monocarpic flowering plants of the genus Musa, and for the fruit they produce". IOW it purports to be about essentially the entire genus Musa. That raises several problems:

• 1) Why do we have this article when it is essentially the same topic as the article Musa (genus). There may be some Musa that are not monocarpic, but to the best of my knowledge they are a tiny minority of the genus. So why not merge this article with the Musa article, which is also also essentially about "monocarpic flowering plants of the genus Musa" and discusses the fruit they produce?

• 2) It makes almost any statement on this page untrue. For example, the statements about the average size of banana fruit. These may be true of cultivated bananas, but they seem to be patently untrue as an average size of all members of the genus Musa. It also makes it hard to find references for such claims.

• 3) Although you claim above that this article is for people looking forMusa acuminata, Musa balbisiana, and their cultivars, that isn't what the lead says. It says that it is an article about virtually every species within the genus Musa, excluding only those species that are not monocarpic. If the intent of editors is that the "entire article talks exclusively about these species and cultivars", then we need to get consensus on that intent and then say that somewhere. Because at the moment that is only your interpretation of what the article is about. Nobody else has agreed to that circumscription, and the lead flatly contradicts the claim.

FWIW, I agree, we do need an article on cultivated bananas, and "Banana" is the obvious name for that topic. The problem is that this article isn't about domesticated bananas. It is about all monocarpic flowering plants of the genus Musa, and for the fruit they produce.The vast majority of those plants are not domesticates. I suggest changing the lead to reflect that this is an article about domesticated bananas and their wild ancestors, if that is the intent of this article.

Thirdly, the previous wording does not explain why calling a banana a tree might be considered wrong. It states outright that it is a mistake to call a banana a tree. Since we have reputable sources stating unambiguously that it is not a mistake to call a banana a tree, the wording needs to be changed. If you want to also including wording that explains why calling a banana a tree might be considered wrong under some definitions and right under others, that's fair enough. But to simply state that the banana is "mistaken" for a tree when it actually is a tree is misleading.... at best. It is no more correct than a claim that a banana is often mistaken for a herb.

Lastly, the article does not have enough {{fact}} tags. Per standard Wikipedia policy, any controversial statement needs to be referenced or it can be removed. I find it hard to credit that the weight and size figures given, for example, are the average for all monocarpic flowering plants of the genus Musa. As such they are controversial and need a reference

Adding some more may not make it more likely that someone will fill them in. But it does mean that I can delete them as unsourced material. I could have just deleted them outright, but I like to challenge such statements first.

It is not up to me to chase sources for extraordinary claims. I don't believe that a source actually exists that lists the averaged size of all monocarpic flowering plants of the genus Musa. As such I am not going on a wild goose chase to find such a source. Basic Wikipedia policy is that statement needs a source or it will be removed. If nobody can be bothered finding reference for the material they have added, then I will remove it.

It suspect that many of these problems can be corrected or minimised simply by making it clear that the article is about cultivated bananas. If we can get consensus on that change of topic, a lot of the other problems will largely resolve themselves.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark Marathon (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm seriously not looking for an edit war. Please respect my wish for other opinions to be heard first. One of the changes is already demonstrably incorrect (the taxobox), and even clashes with your assertion that it includes the entire genus.

Two, we have an article on this because when people talk of banana they do not mean one of those weird plants endemic to our rainforests here and eaten solely by monkeys and fruit bats, but to the bananas cultivated by humans since prehistoric times. And THAT definition is fairly exclusive. Even FAO or GRIN does not mean the enset when it talks about "banana". I have no time to check the history now, but I suspect the broadening of the first sentences is a recent edit (which would explain why Ensete ventricosum somehow snuck its way into there). Given that you obviously understand this problem, what would broadening it to encompass all of Musa accomplish? Nothing. Not all members of Musa are bananas, not all plants called "bananas" are in Musa, BUT the common definition of banana refers specifically to the cultivated descendants of two wild species (both of which, though also "bananas", also have their own articles). There is even a disambiguation hatnote in place. It's a separate article for the same reason why Cat is about Felis silvestris catus and not Felis, of which a lot of members also have "cat" on their names. Change the lead if you think it's too broad, don't make the article even more irrelevant by expecting other people to change the article for you to become basically useless.

I don't care that much about the tree issue. By all means, clarify it, but don't tip it the other way either, instead claiming that it is indeed a tree just to prove a point in the other article which I'm not even touching.

And tag-bombing is disruptive. Yes, you can delete them if you want, but ask yourself honestly, why? Simply because they don't have references for things like how a banana bunch can have three to twenty tiers? There's nothing extraordinary about that claim. Those things can easily be checked online, and if my internet is not still suffering from the latest typhoon to pass us, I would gladly fill it in myself as I have done hundreds of times for other articles. Here I found one in 5 seconds of googling.

You are the one challenging it, if it's not your responsibility, then whose is it? Are you somehow expecting the guy who inserted that perhaps five years ago to still be active and monitoring it? No. A bit of common sense and good faith goes a long way. Tagging is easy, and ugly. If all we did was tag and remove, we'd have nothing left. Tag it if the information is indeed highly controversial (e.g. "bananas can cure cancer"), but don't tag it simply because it's uncited. That would accomplish nothing realistically. All of this is covered in the usage instructions of the {{Fact}} template. Also see WP:SOFIXIT. Wikipedia is not a contest of who is right or wrong. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and for the previous edit where I deleted much of the content, yes it was accidental, it's a common problem when my internet connection is slow. Page saves only half of the changes. Thanks for fixing that. I would also support a rewording of the lead to clarify that the article refers solely to Musa acuminata/Musa balbisiana cultivars.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Should monocarpic above read pathenocarpic? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what monocarpy has anything to do with this at all. His #1 rationale is tantamount to saying that since humans are iteroparous like all hominids, its article should then be merged under Hominidae. He is basing his entire argument on the vagueness of the first sentence of the article, which is what he should be fixing in the first place. He knows what is wrong with the article, but instead of fixing it, he instead rewrites the entire article so it fits the wrong sentence better. Whut. Next thing, we'll be claiming that when FAO talks about Abacá plantations, they're really talking about fruit yields.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Managing the content of articles when a plant product (whether food or other) is not in a 1:1 relationship with botanical taxa is always a problem. Here it seems clear that a separate article on the plant product is the right approach; there's bound to be some overlap with genus/species articles. This article seems to me about right in its focus on what English-speakers normally mean by "banana", namely the food, where it comes from, what it is, how it's grown, etc. It would be possible to move some of the taxonomy material to Musa (genus) perhaps, with some cross-referencing, so that the article concentrates more on the food and agricultural aspects of the topic, but this would be a marginal change. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The taxonomic material for M. acuminata and M. balbisiana are already duplicated and discussed in relation to the non-economically important members of the genus in the broader scope of the Musa article and the plantain article, and more specifically in their respective species articles. Other plants with the "banana" name, are already correctly disambiguated elsewhere. Nothing else can be done except trust our readers to be able to think for themselves. I do not see how anyone could possibly misconstrue what "banana" means in the most common usage. Even ensets are usually called false bananas, and are cultivated for their starchy pseudostems, not their fruits.

This article is a high-visibility topic. Aside from being hit by massive drive-by tagging last August that resulted in lovely [citation needed] tags on every sentence without a ref number at its end (which predictably resulted in absolutely no action in the intervening months), it's been proclaiming the scientific name of bananas to be Musa acuminata Colla in the last few days, been confused with ensets in the last few weeks, and now apparently the entire article is to become irrelevant because somehow banana became synonymous to Musaceae according to Wikipedia experts. Google has already picked this up in their search results. Not much longer before this becomes one of those circular sourced Wikipedia myths that have become so prevalent we can actually begin to find them in semi-reputable sources.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead, particularly the opening sentence, to reflect the definitions given in most dictionaries I've consulted (specifically referenced to Merriam-Webster), which are (1) the fruit (2) the plant. I think that with a bit more work we should be able to get this article back to GA status. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's ideal, honestly. I agree with Mark Marathon that this article would be better off if we restrict it to cultivated M. acuminata and M. balbisiana as that is really what the entire article is talking about. As it should be, given that common and academic use of the term, starting from Simmonds' clarification of banana taxonomy in the mid-20th century, really is almost always restricted to them. It only extends to other species (in the narrowest sense, only for members of Eumusa, and in the broadest including all members of Musaceae) in terms of all of them being part of the banana family. If readers are looking for them, the hatnote and a short sentence explaining the other less well-known applications of the common name should be enough to point them to the correct articles. I don't however agree with him that this requires a change of topic, it already is the topic. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, this goes back to the whole issue of how to deal with foods and the plants they come from when name of the food covers more than one taxon. I think that most readers want to know about bananas as food: what they are, where they come from, what they contain, how they are used, where and how they are traded, etc. Compare this article with Apple and Cabbage – both GAs. Banana now opens in the same way as these two, and most of the Banana article is along the same lines as them, i.e. focused on the product, with the obvious exception of the over-detailed Taxonomy section, which I would prune, with links elsewhere. The lead section needs expansion so that it accurately summarizes the whole article; the sections towards the end of the article aren't properly represented in the lead, which needs to be perhaps 2-3 times as long, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, always a headache that. But seeing Apple, I think you're right that explicitly delineating this topic as referring to the fruit of the most widely cultivated plants is probably the best way to deal with it. I've transferred the part on the first sentence about the name also referring to the plants to the last paragraph which details the use of the common name for other members of Musaceae (including Ensete which are not cultivated for their fruit). See if that's alright.

I would retain the taxonomy section though. Classifying cultivars as being mostly the Musa acuminata (A) or Musa balbisiana (B) genotype is pretty important in the banana fruit industry, independent of the taxonomy of the individual species . This is given that prior to Simmonds' studies, almost every cultivar recognized today as belonging to the latter two species were incorrectly treated as separate species or subspecies on their own.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't get rid of the Taxonomy section, merely summarize the key points with the detail (e.g. the table) elsewhere. But this is a matter of judgement, and I don't feel strongly about it. What I would like to do is to get this article back to GA status. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Botanical names for banana

Contrary to some of the information previously in the article, Musa × paradisiaca L. is an accepted botanical name. According to the authoritative World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, Linnaeus' M. sapientum is treated as a synonym of his M. paradisiaca. That this has since been discovered to be the hybrid between M. acuminata and M. balbisiana, so the name is written with the hybrid symbol as M. × paradisiaca, does not change the validity of the original name.

I can see that this usage can be confusing: the modern meaning of M. × paradisiaca includes both Linnaeus' "dessert bananas" and his "plantains" but excludes any banana cultivars derived solely from M. acuminata or M. balbisiana. However, the WCSP is generally authoritative, and it is more recent than the sources which don't use the name in this way, so I think it must be acknowledged. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Side note The article previously said that "Musa acuminata × balbisiana" was the name of the hybrid between the two species. There are two problems with this according to the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants (ICN).

• Although expressions like this can be found in the literature, Article H.2 of the ICN requires the name of each taxon to be written either side of the × sign, so it should be "Musa acuminata × M. balbisiana".
• Such an expression is not a name but a formula. Hybrids which are more than occasional occurrences are almost always given a formal name. According to the WCSP, the name of Musa acuminata × M. balbisiana is M. × paradisiaca. The × is not part of the name, serving only to indicate that this is a hybrid, so this is the same name as Linnaeus' M. paradisiaca although not the same meaning (circumscription), since he distinguished his M. paradisiaca from his M. sapientum, whereas the modern circumscription of M. × paradisiaca includes both.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading statistics

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)

Plantains versus Bananas

I think the reader could imagine that bananas are not called bananas in Asia, we also understand that a plantain is a type of banana and didn't expect the bi-fold description to cross the language barrier. I know there are many types of potato, I could guess that in other cultures they don't call them Baby Red or Russets. 74.118.32.5 (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue (the "difference" between bananas and plantains) is difficult to explain, and I accept that the wording in the article at present needs some work. The point to be made is this. There are a very large number of banana cultivars in the world as a whole. Some produce relatively starchy fruit that needs to be cooked. Others produce relatively sugary fruit that can be eaten raw. Some are in between. In countries where a lot of banana cultivars are known, there is no sharp difference between the starchy ones and the sugary ones: there are cultivars with all kinds of differences. In countries like the US or the UK where only a few cultivars are imported, there is a sharp difference between starchy cultivars (called plantains) and sugary cultivars (called bananas); intermediate kinds simply aren't imported. So people in the US or the UK generally think that plantains and bananas are distinct kinds of fruit, when they are not if you consider the whole range of cultivars.

So the point is that in, e.g., India, neither the local languages nor the official statistics make a sharp two-fold distinction between "bananas" and "plantains", because this distinction doesn't make sense there. In South India, are "banana" leaves used as plates or "plantain" leaves? It doesn't matter. It's not a useful question. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I will throw this into the mix. In Honduras I can get fried chicken for lunch. The chicken comes with a choice of french-fries, fried bananas, or fried plantains. There is a considerable different in taste between the fried bananas and the fried plantains; I prefer the fried plantains over the fried bananas, as do most people; the fried plantains are more popular than fried bananas. The fried bananas could be either a true cooking banana such as the FHIA-25 (it is normally only cooked and only used green, if its allowed to ripen it has an off-putting taste), or the fried banana could be a dual use banana such as the FHIA-17, which is widely used as a green cooking banana, but also upon ripening becomes a full flavored desert banana (and is never cooked in the yellow stage). The green cooking bananas in this case are not considered plantains; they look like any unripe banana you would see in a US grocery store; they have neither the taste of a plantain, nor the appearance of a plantain, nor are the plants sold as plantains, they are sold to farmers as either cooking bananas or as dual use bananas. Plantains on the other hand, at least in Honduras, look like plantains, taste like plantains, and are sold as plantains if you are buying plants.

FHIA (Honduras Foundation for Agricultural Research) is the main banana research facility in the Americas. They make a distinction between cooking bananas and plantains. The FHIA-21 is a plantain by their standards [2]

Green fruits may be eaten boiled or fried; ripe fruits are eaten fried, baked or microwaved.;

the FHIA-17 is mainly marketed as a dual use banana [3] (I have seen the English language version of this pamphlet, but it apperes only the Spanish version is online)

When mature, the shell has an attractive color pale yellow, with a silky smooth texture and creamy, light cream flavored varieties like Cavendish but more like the taste of Gros Michel. In addition to its use in fresh, ripe banana can be used either as children pureed food. It is also recommended for use in fruit salad, because when cut into slices, not rust (wearing black) as commercial banana varieties Cavendish. When cooked green, has an attractive white on the outside and gold on the inside, with excellent texture and flavor. When cooked, the fruit does not disintegrate. The pulp is processed green light yellow color, not very crisp and smooth. (Google translation uncorrected)

The FHIA-25 is strictly a green cooking banana [4]

The dwarf hybrid FHIA-25 is a cooking banana, which was selected in 1997.

In Fruits of Warm Climates, Julia Morton says this:

In India, there is no distinction between bananas and plantains. All cultivars are merely rated as to whether they are best for dessert or for cooking. [5] [6]

Gabriel Sachter-Smith said this:

The name Musa paradisiaca is invalid, but yes...it is looking like a plantain banana, but keep posting more photos as it develops. A plantain is a specific type of banana which belongs to the Plantain Subgroup with an AAB genome. Generally they are used as cooking bananas, but not all cooking bananas are plantains. Not all AAB bananas are plantains either.[7]

Gabriel Sachter-Smith is a banana prodigy, as strange as that may sound; strange or not he is one of the most respected people around when it comes to bananas, not just in Hawaii but in Africa as well; although I am not sure his answer clarifies anything for us.Talent like this doesn’t grow on treesBanana Genius Grows 50 Varietals On University Of Hawaii Farm

Anyway, things to chew on Brimba (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that these quotes make even clearer (if that's possible) that:

• "Plantain" has multiple meanings. Specialists typically use it in a narrower sense than non-specialists.

• There is a clear difference between what are called "plantains" and "bananas" in some countries, but not worldwide.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

(edit conflict) I agree that the current opening sentence ("Banana is one of the common names ...") is a bit odd, but this general form was the result of a compromise after some edit warring. The problem is the one discussed at length above, namely the use of "banana" and "plantain" in popular use in some countries to mean particular kinds of Musa fruit, whereas in other countries and in more technical sources "banana" is used as the name of all such fruit. The position seems to be that a banana is either (1) a sweet yellow Musa fruit used for dessert, those used for cooking being "plantains", or (2) any edible Musa fruit, or (3) any Musa fruit. (The plant producing the fruit is also called a banana.) If you want to change the opening sentence, please discuss here first. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It is normal to put alternate names in brackets after the common name. I don't see a reason not to. It seems especially important in this case Bhny (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not an alternative name for those people who treat plantains as different from bananas. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Also it's not what the citation given says. I've now tried a different formulation which may help. The banana/plantain issue is explained further down in the article, but is perhaps worth mentioning earlier, provided this is done accurately. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Care for bananas

I was reading other websites and banana plant trees and how to grow info and in contents it says that you shouldn’t use potting soil???and also said not to use a big container??? well I wanted to let you know that both are not true I use a 10 gallon bucket with 30% nursery mix soil and 70% fox farm forest floor I have created a compost tea undeneath the 10 gallon bucket so that the tea absorbs from the bottom and I have my banana plant growing 29 inch leaves in just 2 months I am a banana expert in moscow idaho I can send pictures to prove my theory please do not tell people false aplications for banana trees I care for them a lot to know. love Dana Mastro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.132.206 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we can only write things which are supported by reliable sources, not our personal experiences. See WP:RS. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Taxobox

Can we add a taxobox to the section Taxonomy?JEMZ1995 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Banananananananananass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.159.128.62 (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to add any kind of taxobox or cultivar box because "bananas" aren't a single species or hybrid.

Article is locked so others can change this. Black Sigatoka, should be prn. "singatoka". Fijians have an odd spelling system, being derived from the IPL alphabet. Not a "g" b ut "ng" glyph.220.244.90.119 (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It may well be that the origin of the name of the disease is spelt and pronounced "siŋatoka" in Fijian but in English it's written as in the article Black sigatoka. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Genetically Modified Banana Article

I recently added this to the page for vaccine. More complex plants such as tobacco, potato, tomato and banana, can have genes inserted that cause them to produce vaccines usable for humans. Sala, F.; Manuela Rigano, M.; Barbante, A.; Basso, B.; Walmsley, AM; Castiglione, S (January 2003). "Vaccine antigen production in transgenic plants: strategies, gene constructs and perspectives". Vaccine. 21 (7–8): 803–8. PMID 23888738. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) There is a seperate page for genetically modified tomatoes; should there be one for bannanas and other fruits and vegetables?

Are there actually any commercially important genetically modified bananas? If there were, perhaps there could be a page, but I'm not convinced at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading production data

The recent archiving of old material here has removed an important warning. FAO and similar production data is misleading, as is explained at Banana#Production and export, unless statistics for "bananas" and "plantains" are combined. Some countries separate their data for "bananas" and "plantains", but three of the world's top four producers do not. So adding up stated production of "bananas" alone is misleading, and significantly underestimates world production. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Bananas are man created

   I was on Scishow and I came across this really interesting video of bananas.

Turns out, bananas are now, human created and are never organic. I did a basic scan of this page, and I did not find anything about bananas that are man-made. I think we should add that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The commercially available "dessert" and plantain bananas are the pinnacles of agriculture, being hybrid descendants and mutant descendants of thousands of thousands of years old cultivars. "Organic" (however you define it) bananas would probably wild species of Musa, and would probably have thousands of pebble-like, tooth-cracking seeds.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What plants used for food are not "man-made" in the sense that bananas are? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Aside from wild-harvested plants?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Bananas are not fruit.

This article describes bananas as fruit. Although it does describe taxonomy, this is at a low level. It would be informative to readers to properly describe bananas as herbs. The article on Musa correctly does this, but readers should not have to read linked articles to discover very basic facts like what sort of plant it is. FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Already taken care of in the first sentence of the lead. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Banana" is mainly used for the fruit, in my experience, although it is used for the plant which is often incorrectly called a "banana tree" (almost half a million Google hits), although "banana plant" is obviously better. So, yes, bananas are fruit; they are also the plants from which the fruit is obtained. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been protected since 2010? I think it's time to try to unprotect it. The original vandals have likely grown up and moved on to better, or worse, things. 205.156.84.229 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And how do we know that other vandals will not swoop down to continue what their predecessors started? Especially with a well-known topic like banana?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And it's not just deliberate vandals. Topics like this, which almost everyone thinks they know about from experience, constantly attract incorrect additions by well-meaning editors. A particular problem here is that the range of banana cultivars known in the countries with English as the mother tongue is very, very limited compared to the world as whole, which leads to false impressions (e.g. that all bananas are yellow-skinned and white-fleshed, or that bananas and plantains are completely distinct non-overlapping categories). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with giving it a trial run as unprotected. The article's on a fair number of peoples' watchlists and it's not very hard to revert vandalism if it comes up. Alternatively, since there's no specific reason to think there's a threat here, why not change the protection status to Pending Changes Level 1 Protection. That works well on decently high-profile BLP articles in my experience, I see no reason why it wouldn't work here. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is freedom! Unprotect the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection has already dropped to Pending Changes Level 1. Feel free to make constructive changes to the article, and autoconfirmed users will have the option of accepting the revisions. You always had the option of making an {{edit request}} here, but now you can edit the page directly and autoconfirmed users can simply accept or deny your changes. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As expected, this page is getting vandalized pretty consistently, seems like almost every day, but none of the edits are making it to the front page. Doesn't seem like it's getting vandalized much more than say, T.I., and we may want to give it a month or so to "settle" in case this isn't just random "foot traffic vandalism" anyway (plus we probably want to give ourselves some time to see if any IP/new editors end up making productive edits), but are people particularly annoyed with the need to revert the pending revisions? I'm not particularly bothered by it, but of course I'm not the one who has been catching most of the edits - what do other editors think? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I remember of before the protection was put in place, this was the minimum level of vandalism seen at Banana. If it doesn't settle in a month, I'd recommend restoring the protection level back to the way it was.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, the rate of vandalism does not appear to be abating.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I also now realize that my initial thinking on this matter was naive. I had thought, "Hey, it doesn't matter if they vandalize it when it's on Pending Changes Level 1 because no one sees it", but now I realize that it's cluttering up the revision history quite a bit. I think it's probably time to restore the indefinite semi-protection. Maybe this is a topic for the village pump proposals board - it would be nice if when reverting pending changes as vandalism, they could be automatically filtered out of the revision history and/or put into a separate "vandalism log". Might be more trouble than it's worth, though. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I support restoring protection. This article has always been a magnet to vandals. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Banana average size/weight/composition - cultivar differences?

I'm looking to fill in a few citations on here, and I noticed this uncited statement:

Individual banana fruits (commonly known as a banana or "finger") average 125 grams (0.276 lb), of which approximately 75% is water and 25% dry matter.

The scope of this article seems to cover many different banana cultivars, and I'm guessing they vary significantly in weight and size. I'll look for some citations on this subject and see if I can find an overview of banana sizes by cultivar, but I don't know how successful that will be. Is there a case to be made for the "average mass" being meaningful in this context?0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a classic case of one of the problems with this article, namely editors assuming that all bananas are like the yellow Cavendish kind. I do not think that averages across cultivars make sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

why ?

why this is not a featured artice ??? why it's is not even a good one ??? it have 91,791 bytes --ᔕGᕼᗩIEᖇ ᗰOᕼᗩᗰEᗪ (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article length isn't the only thing that makes a GA. This article is a former Good Article, it was delisted in 2006, the discussion on that is here, and was done for lack of inline citations. I believe many of the issues have been resolved now, but there are still 34 statements in this article tagged with {{citation needed}}. I think the first thing to do before requesting a GA reassessment would be to find citations for these 34 statements. If we want to bring it to FA status, then I'd recommend that we request a peer review. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Another problem has always been defining the precise topic of the article. Is it about "bananas" as understood in Western countries where it basically means Cavendish and similar cultivars? Is it about all cultivated Musa fruits, including those usually called "plantains" in English-speaking countries? (There used to be an article called just "Plantain" which is now at Cooking plantain but is supposed to cover all uses of bananas and plantains in cooking, although there are lots of specialized articles like Banana beer, Banana bread, Banana chips, Banana cue, etc.) How does this article relate to the Musa article? See the long list of articles in the banana templates at the bottom of the article. Is this the general article of which the other articles are extensions (in which case it needs only to summarize them)? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

section "Cultural roles" is incomplete

See Racism in association football and banana. 77.87.206.241 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)