Talk:Banana/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Serotonin, norepinephrine, and related compounds in bananas.

Ripe bananas were found to contain large amounts of Serotonin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine. The large amounts of Norepinephrine may explain why those with atherosclerosis will experience an increase in heart rate and/or a heart attack after a large consumption of ripe bananas. However a moderate intake of bananas over a period of time is associated with a significantly lower risk of Coronary artery disease.

Seems logical to me. Norepinepherine has been shown to increase heart rate. Norepinepherine is found in ripe bananas. Therefore a large consumption of ripe bananas will lead to an increase in heart rate and/or a heart attack in those with atherosclerosis (aka messed up metabolism). Please explain what is wrong with writing this on the primary page? Cobgenius (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. If you then don't understand, we can discuss the issue further. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What does "medicine" have to do with biochemistry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.96.255 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In one word, everything. Biochemistry is to medicine what the explanation of hydrogen-bonding is to the wetness of water.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Images

I remain surrounded by miles and miles long banana farms. I have uploaded 70 images so far. If the article needs some image which I haven't uploaded, please tell me. I just noticed that I haven't uploaded pic of banana plant/tree leaf. ABHIJEET (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The article contains the sentence: "In 1999 archaeologists in London discovered what they believed to be the oldest banana in the UK, in a Tudor rubbish tip.[55]"

This appears to be a vandalism, based on a humorous misuse of the word "oldest".

Except that it isn't vandalism because it's sourced to an article with an actual picture. [1] --Mr Fink (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

166.137.12.126 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Collin237 I had just checked back here when I realized I forgot to sign my post. I certainly didn't expect a reply so soon, especially not one so snarky. You can't just put a datum somewhere because it matches a few words. It's not on the subject of the article! Why didn't you put it somewhere like Landfills in the United Kingdom?

Do not accuse me of being snarky solely because I contradicted your claim of vandalism. Were you honestly expecting a bout of apoplectic grovelling and kowtowing and a couple dozen rounds of "yes master!" in the morn? (so there's your snark, cookie) That it's a datum does not automatically make it vandalism, nor does it mean it should be summarily deleted. I mean, it doesn't occur to you that it could be better integrated into the article, instead?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, IP editor, I think it's necessary to assume good faith here. It may well be that it's a bit of fluff that doesn't belong in this article, but people don't tend to provide reliable sources for their vandalism. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 11:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

The etymology of banana is slightly hazy and could do with being clarified. The word banana comes from Arabic, an ancient form of Arabic used in the Quran. It comes from the word for finger بنان (bnaan) and is distinct from the modern Arabic word for banana موز (mawz). The word bnaan is no longer used in Arabic. 41.251.195.206 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't provide any source for you assertion, and the OED says different. William Avery (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. William Avery (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED is, in this matter, not consistent with the French dictionaries. In the TLFi (Trésor de la langue française informatisé), the origin is set in Bantu languages of Guinée. Note that this debate is not without emotions - it seems important to a vociferous group to bring up etymologies from Wolof for various words. Such goropisms are coined by apostles of Afrocentrism, the same who spread rumors that Beethoven was black, or Charlemagne, or Jesus. Like the ancient Egyptians, whose language was, in the same vein, also Wolof (Cheikh Anta Diop's theory). If interested in this phenomenon, you may read Russell Schuh's paper on the misuse of linguistics in African history. Riyadi (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding an Illustration for the exports section

insert an image to the "===Production and export===" section. The image is an illustration of Table 2 in that section.

Banana Exports by Country (2011)

change from:

===Production and export===

change to:

===Production and export===
[[File:Banana Exports 2011.png|thumb|Banana Exports by Country (2011)]]

Lilboox (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2014 (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. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: As you said, there's already a table that very clearly lists the information. Your graphic is less clear - Ecuador's banana portion looks much larger than the "all others" portion which is contradictory to the listed percentages. Cannolis (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

I noticed an error in the third paragraph of the article talking about the sharp distinction between plantains and bananas. Where the article says "Especially in the Americas and Europe,", I believe it should say "However, in the Americas and Europe," since there is a sharp distinction between plantains and bananas in the states, and the rest of the paragraph backs that up. Retep1515 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've undone this edit. It needs more discussion. The wording used emerged from extensive discussions both here and at other pages concerned with edible Musa species, including Cooking plantain. Even in North America and Europe there isn't a "sharp" distinction between the plantains and bananas. The term "banana" is sometimes used for all kinds (as in the caption in the first photo in the article, where the green fruit on the left could be called a "plantain") and sometimes only for sweet dessert bananas. It's a classic example of parallel inclusive and contrastive use, common in natural language. Thus sometimes "animal" contrasts with "human" ("animal liberation" means non-human animals) and sometimes "animal" includes "human" (humans are animals). The context determines which usage is meant. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, I'd argue that it couldn't have been too extensive of a discussion considering Worldwide, there is no sharp distinction between "bananas" and "plantains". Especially in the Americas and Europe, "banana" usually refers to soft, sweet, dessert bananas, particularly those of the Cavendish group, which are the main exports from banana-growing countries. By contrast, Musa cultivars with firmer, starchier fruit are called "plantains". isn't proper English. Could you please link to that discussion? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't it "proper English"? It seems perfectly grammatical to me.

The discussion wasn't specifically about these two sentences, whose wording I'm quite happy to see revised if it isn't clear, but about the meaning of "banana" and "plantain" and what the articles about them should be called. See in particular Talk:Cooking plantain. There has been a consensus, albeit regularly disputed, that the articles should be written in such a way that "banana" is the most inclusive, with "plantain" more specific, either Cooking plantain or True plantains or specific cultivars like Saba banana. So I don't agree that the sense of the two sentences should be changed without allowing more input from those who have been working on the banana-related articles as a whole. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Despicable Me

Should we mention Despicable Me in this article? Because there a shit-ton of t shirts that say "Ba-Ba-Ba-Nana and there getting no my nerves. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend going through the guidelines here, first.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015

This statement is incorrect:

"Although bananas are commonly thought to supply exceptional potassium content,[85] their actual potassium content is relatively low per typical food serving at only 8% of the Daily Value (right table). A compilation of potassium content in common foods consumed in the United States shows that raw bananas rank 1,611th, supplying 358 mg of potassium per 100 g; some foods with higher potassium content include beans, milk, apricots, carrots, sweet green bell peppers and potatoes.[86]"

In particular, the statement "A compilation of potassium content in common foods consumed in the United States shows that raw bananas rank 1,611th" is entirely misleading, as the linked citation is actually comparing dried or powdered foods, e.g. powdered milk compared to dehydrated bananas. For instance, 100g of actual whole milk contains significantly less potassium than 100g of undried banana.

Facet37 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done. The list provided is a comprehensive "most-to-least" order as analyzed by an impartial scientific organization, the USDA. It is simply a comparison of potassium content in one food vs. another per 100 g serving. Whether the food is dried or wet/raw does not matter when the data are standardized per unit weight; WP:NPOV and WP:DUE apply. --Zefr (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally found it highly odd that when I clicked on all the links provided, only potatoes came up as having (slightly) more potassium than bananas. If this sentence must be included, I would suggest(changes italicized): "A compilation of potassium content in food products consumed in the United States shows that raw bananas rank 1,611th out of 8,019, supplying 358 mg of potassium per 100 g; some food products with higher potassium content include many types of bean, dry milk, dry apricots, dehydrated carrots, (delete sweet green bell peppers? I never did find them on the list at all) and potatoes.[86]" ArgentTurquoise (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Banana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101215071758/http://fspublishers.org/jass/past-issues/JASSVOL_2_NO_1/15.pdf to http://www.fspublishers.org/jass/past-issues/JASSVOL_2_NO_1/15.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150318010710/http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/07/web_bananas.pdf to http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/07/web_bananas.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005024439/http://www.ipmcenters.org:80/cropprofiles/docs/hibananas.html to http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/hibananas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This Article Doesn't Make It Clear If Bananas Are A Fruit Or An Herb

I came to this article because I read elsewhere that bananas are herbs, not fruit. But the article seems to ride the fence on this point, saying that bananas are a fruit from an herbaceous flowering plant. It does not give a definitive answer on this point. I think it would improve the article if this was cleared up. 96.19.48.90 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So what compelling evidence exists that the banana is " a herb", and how exactly should the article be "cleaned up" to reflect this? The first six words of the article are these: "The banana is an edible fruit". That seems pretty "clean" to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The "banana" in and of itself is a fruit: the common name of the herb the banana is harvested from is alternatively called (also) "banana," "banana plant" or "banana tree." The plant is an "herb" because the stalk is not woody.</pedantry>--Mr Fink (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So in the same way that an apple is a tree, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said the article needed to be "cleaned up" I said I read elsewhere (alternet) that bananas are herbs, and I don't know what reference they relied on with that statement. I don't know what the ultimate definitions of herbs or fruits are, if I did, I would not need Wikipedia.96.19.48.90 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The terms herb and fruit are not mutually exclusive. Banana plants are herbs and the fruits they produce are fruits. See Glossary of botanical terms. Plantsurfer 23:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, looks like I slipped up there. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Saying that "bananas are herbs, not fruit" is akin to saying that dolphins are mammals, not sea life. It is a statement that makes not sense because the two groups are not mutually exclusive. Bananas are herbs, and fruit, and vegetables, and trees, and berries, and perennials and ornamentals. None of these terms are mutually exclusive. The plant itself a perennial, herbaceous tree. The tree may be grown as an ornamental or a food crop. The crop produced is botanical fruit. That fruit is a berry. The fruit is also used as a culinary vegetable. The plant is indeed a "herb" because the stalk is not woody. It is also a tree because the leaves are held above the ground on an elongated stem. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify (or perhaps just make things even more complicated), terms like "herb", "fruit", "tree" and "berry" have both technical, botanical meanings and common, everyday meanings, which can differ. Botanically, banana plants are herbs, not trees, but as Mark Marathon notes above, in common usage "tree" has a wider meaning. Similarly a banana plant produces a botanical fruit which, when originating from some cultivars (see Cooking plantain), is intended to be consumed as a "vegetable". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Unlike terms such as "fruit" or "berry" which are clearly defined botanically, there is no botanical definition of a tree. Each botanist and botanical organisation makes up and uses their own definition of "tree". Under some of those definitions, herbaceous trees such as palms, bananas or papayas are not trees. Under most definitions, palms, bananas and papayas are indeed trees, despite being herbaceous plants. IOW botanically bananas are indeed trees, although many botanists disagree.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There definitely are "botanical definitions" of "tree". The Kew Plant Glossary says "perennial woody plant with secondary thickening, with a clear main trunk". The online glossary for the Flora of North America says "Perennial, woody, more or less erect, relatively tall, with one or more distinct aboveground portions each with a single, relatively stout, columnar, main stem (trunk or bole) that bears branches." The New Flora of the British Isles says "a woody plant, usually >5 m, with a single trunk". All the definitions in botanical texts that I've seen say that a tree is "woody" and has a "main trunk", ruling out Musa species. (The "tree"/"shrub" boundary is necessarily somewhat vague.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said, there are multiple definitions of what a tree is, not just one as with "berry" or "fruit". Each organisation has their own, as you just discovered. Try putting "herbaceous tree' into a google search, and discover how many reliable sources are happy to refer to papayas, palms and bananas as trees. the fact that you found some definitions that require trees to be woody doesn't invalidate the fact that the FAO and dozaens of prestigous universities are happy to call bamboo, papaya, palms and bananas trees. There is simply no consensus on what defines a tree. You can start with the university of Miami's page if you want to know more.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Bit off the initial topic, but each organization doesn't quite "have its own" definition; there is a strong commonality, as I pointed out. By the way, there are different, in some cases radically incompatible, definitions of "berry" and "fruit". I won't discuss them here, but if you're interested see, as one example, Talk:Berry (botany)#Annona example of an aggregate fruit. See also this little spat between respected botanists over what "multiple fruit" means. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Perhaps the economic info in this edit: [2] can be put in again. More sources might be needed though. Redneck rick (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem for me, and why I reverted it, is that it combines data from different sources to reach conclusions not reached by any of them. In particular, to get $/hectare it multiplies trees/hectare by kg/tree by $/kg, where the three figures are from different sources (the first from India, the middle from Burundi, the last from Zimbabwe). What's needed are sources that give $/hectare, or allow it to be calculated based on data for the same country and cultivation techniques.

It's also important to be aware of WP:OR here. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Taxobox

"Binomial name: Belinkafinac." I doubt that's true. But I'm no biologist. --Komischn (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not! However, there shouldn't be a taxobox – they are for articles about taxa (species, genera, etc.), whereas this article is about a much less clearly defined group of organisms, namely those members of the genus Musa which are cultivated for their fruit. If any infobox were justified it would be a cultivar box. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Expert assistance requested. --Komischn (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Taxoboxes describe taxa. What taxon is this article about? The genus Musa? No, that's the article Musa. A particular species? No, we have articles on them, including one on the hybrid Musa × paradisiaca, to which most of the edible cultivars of bananas belong (but not all, and not the most common Cavendish cultivars). Please do not add a taxobox without (a) reviewing the history of the article to see that it does not have a taxobox (b) explaining here what taxon the article is supposed to be about. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Banana
Genus	Musa
Cultivar group	Many
Origin	Papua New Guinea, Southeast Asia

If an infobox is considered essential, the only accurate one would be as opposite, but it isn't of much value in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Banana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311123354/http://www.newscientist.com:80/article/mg17723813.300-rescuing-the-banana.html to http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17723813.300-rescuing-the-banana.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Two Contradictions

The article states that NAFTA has driven out the small banana farmer (or, more accurately, growers if small crops), but later there's a statement that most bananas are produced by small farmers.

Similarly, an early statement claims that storing bananas in the fridge does not impair the flavor, but a later section says that refrigeration negatively affects flavor. (I've encountered the claim that the notion that bananas shouldn't be refrigerated was a ruse by Chiquita to ensure that bananas would spoil more quickly, prompting higher sales.)

I leave it to the author to sort out these contradictions, as I lack the expertise to do so. KC 19:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

when it was first sold

207.32.20.122 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Inferred from the existing article under Cultivation: "...banana cultivation there goes back to at least 5000 BCE, and possibly to 8000 BCE". Suggest there is no need for a revision. --Zefr (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2016 (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. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nutrition table

The article is about bananas in general, not just about Cavendish bananas, although it concentrates on dessert cultivars originating in Musa acuminata, Musa balbisiana, and Musa × paradisiaca, rather than, say, those originating in Musa × troglodytarum (e.g. Fe'i bananas). The sources I've seen that looked at nutrient levels across different cultivars, usually concentrating on specific nutrients, found huge variations (e.g. a ratio of 170:1 for β-carotene). Even for something like water content there are substantial differences: the article quotes 75% for unstated cultivar(s), whereas Engelberger et al. (2010) (source in the article) find a range from 84% to 67% in the cultivars they looked at – undoubtedly not ones eaten in western countries, but indicative of potential variations.

So what cultivars does the table at Banana#Nutrition refer to? I assume Cavendish bananas, but a couple of the sources given by USDA include bananas from Ecuador and Fiji, so it's not entirely clear. I don't find this satisfactory: the table needs to say which cultivars are referred to. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The current table is from the USDA nutrient database where the "Full Report" states that the cultivar analyzed was Musa acuminata Colla which the article states under Taxonomy is the most common cultivated variety. Given the USDA data, I had felt this was the most representative and reliable database to cite in the article. To address Peter's concern to specifically name the cultivar in the table, I have revised it. Regarding the potential of bananas with carotenoid color (yellow/orange, as here) having significant vitamin A content, should the Englberger results be included in the article? I have not seen confirmation of these results, and would be concerned about the quality/reproducibility of such analyses. --Zefr (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Two other reports with possible relevance: here and here. --Zefr (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd seen that USDA says that the analysis was of "Musa acuminata Colla", but this is completely useless information, since it's a name with a very wide application; it can be applied to everything from the non-edible wild species to triploid AAA and tetraploid AAAA cultivars. It does not refer to a recognized group of cultivars, let alone a single cultivar. I suspect that it's being used wrongly to refer to Cavendish cultivars, but that some non-Cavendish data has been included in the averages. Yes, most dessert bananas sold in western countries are AAA Group cultivars, which can be called Musa acuminata, but the reverse is absolutely not true; most AAA or AAAA Group cultivars of bananas are not dessert bananas.

The point I am trying to make is simply that any study which does not specify precisely the cultivars that it used isn't very meaningful. All the studies of carotenoids that I've seen explicitly list the cultivars used; for example Davey et al. (2009) list 28 cultivars, most of which would be classified as cooking bananas (plantains). It may be that there isn't the same variation in other nutrients, but to treat the USDA table as if it were typical of "bananas" as a whole is just wrong. There's no such thing as "a banana".

Precisely the same problem arises at Cooking plantain#Nutrition. On what cultivars is the table based? There's no such thing as "a plantain". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Storage and transport image

Zefr,

Pls see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE and explain why storage and transport of banana info doesn't need image illustration. Also pls explain why you are citing WP:NOTGALLERY when section doesn't have any image at all. AbhiRiksh (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I felt the image offered was a generic picture at the first stage of banana transport, not really adding educational information about the process. That the section doesn't have an image does not mean that it needs one. Most of the section that is novel to most consumers is the industrial ethylene process used by banana transportation shippers to control ripening while on sea. If that content were represented by a picture, I feel it would add something interesting. But you have removed the proposed image, and the section stands as it is without really needing a picture. --Zefr (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

In short you are trying to say that 'common should be illustrated by uncommon'. India is top banana producing country and also a country of 1.25 billion people. Trucks are most common mode of transport to carry these bananas to all towns and cities in India. Railway is also used, but bulk of transport is done by trucks and also railway can not reach to every town and city in India. And same is true for all banana producing countries. My image shows most basic, most common method of banana storage and most common mode of banana transport right from the banana farm. You can see labourer packing banana bunch in polyethylene bag, polyethylene sheet covering the truck and also banana leaves on top of truck to protect these bananas from heat.

I had reverted my edit because I noticed that 'undo' action has inserted something else also which were not my edits. So I just reverted myself, thought that it is proper to wait for your say and went to sleep.

I have uploaded hundreds of images and my images are in many articles. Users insert it in articles even without my knowledge. I do not try to insert every image uploaded by me in articles. Only the best and relevant image makes it to the article. So generally users do not remove images inserted by me. If you had argued that image quality is not good, or about some other thing, then I would have accepted it. But your WP:NOTGALLERY and then 'common should be illustrated by uncommon' argument is totally invalid.

It seems you know that you are not completely right. I hope you won't stretch the issue just to validate your initial action. AbhiRiksh (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My point in this discussion is that the banana article already contains too many pictures of bananas and yours showing bananas being loaded onto a truck isn't unexpected and doesn't add anything informative for the encyclopedia. The point of WP:NOTGALLERY is that an article should not become a repository of images that do not add to collective knowledge. --Zefr (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to make a point that there are already too many images in the article, but still you would have accepted image of banana loading/stored on ship. If students living in a country where banana doesn't grow at all wants to learn how bananas reach from farms to markets, you want to show them image of banana on the ship ! In India, bananas do not reach to markets in Chennai, Delhi, Jammu, Assam and even Pakistan by ships. They are transported by trucks. And my image is not showing just truck, it is showing how bananas are packed in polyethylen bags and sheets to increase their life until they reach to markets all over India. Your argument that 'expected should be illustrated by the unexpected' is totally irrational and contradicts WP:MOS and WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. If some other user supports your stand, I will retract even though that stand is totally irrational. If no user replies within a week, I will include that image again in the article. It will be wastege of time over total non-issue and because of such attitude of established users people do not volunteer on wikipedia anymore. Thanks. AbhiRiksh (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Stickers, Marking in general

195.168.46.70 (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) There's a new hoax about the meaning of numbers on the stickers put on bananas. I'd be interested in those stickers more. What do the numbers mean? 195.168.46.70 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Just would like to add, the numbers are called PLU codes. This source looks relevant: http://www.ifpsglobal.com/Identification/PLU-Codes

We have a Wikipedia article on price look-up codes explaining that the numerical code (or a bar code for automated reading) serves multiple purposes, such as cultivar, organic or conventional, GMO, origin country, inventory and of course price at check-out, as explained in the link above. Some companies, such as Dole, use a larger or separate sticker for promotion. I don't see any hoax at work, as these stickers are useful and now universally used for nearly all produce items in developed countries. --Zefr (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

See also section please

• List of banana cultivars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If searched up banana then shut down the computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundso (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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://web.archive.org/web/20150906230329/http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 23:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Provided a different source. --Zefr (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101215071758/http://fspublishers.org/jass/past-issues/JASSVOL_2_NO_1/15.pdf to http://www.fspublishers.org/jass/past-issues/JASSVOL_2_NO_1/15.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005024439/http://www.ipmcenters.org:80/cropprofiles/docs/hibananas.html to http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/hibananas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Potassium content

I added a clarification on banana's potassium content, and Zefr kept reverting it. His initial revert was that it was unsourced, so okay, I added two sources from USDA.gov, and Zefr reverted it again, by calling it, "invalid argument", and saying that the standard measurement is 100 g, which it of course is, but that was not the point, since it was a comparison based on calories (so as to point out, as a comparison, how rich banana is in potassium compared to other food at the same calorie level, as opposed to per 100 g). Davey2010 reverted Zefr's revert, and told him to use the talk page. Zefr reverted Davey2010's revert, and described my potassium comparison, as original research. Clearly it's not, as it's simply an observation, sourced from a perfectly reliable and valid source. The short experience I have with Zefr is that he does this on basically every article I've seen him on, his purpose here on Wikipedia is to remove sources and content and revert war over it, not add anything productive to the articles. Anyway, I personally think my potassium comparison was warranted, because earlier in the nutrition section, the article claims that banana is poor in potassium per 100 g, which it may well be, but it certainly isn't poor when you adjust the potassium content after calories, and I think it's valid to point that out if you're going to make a claim in the first place that banana is poor in potassium. HempFan (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As stated in one of my reverts, there is no precedence as a secondary reliable source for using calories as the standard of comparison, a non-sensical idea when two foods – bananas and avocados – differ so considerably in fat content. If you can find a good source that meets WP:SCIRS, then put it in the article to support your comparison. The nutrient table for banana from the USDA database is presented in 100 gram amounts to facilitate fair inter-nutrient and inter-food comparisons, as are all WP articles on food nutrition. This USDA comparison, based on 100 gram amounts, has been in the nutrition section of the banana article for years.

Your comment "it's simply an observation" to use calories as a standard for comparison exposes your own original thinking, WP:OR, which is unscientific, a misinterpretation and plainly unconventional for nutrient presentations, leading to my revert. Also, please read and use the sourcing methods in WP:REFB; your edits and careless insertion of URLs without a template create work for other editors to repair the source per WP:CITE. Go to your Preferences and check the ProveIT box for bot assistance. --Zefr (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason I didn't use 100 g for banana, is because avocado (which is also commonly considered a potassium rich food), is 160 kcal at 100 g. Well, banana is only 89 kcal at 100 g, so I had to adjust it based on calories (yes, I know, fat is more calories per gram than carbs). It's not about original research, it's about pointing out that the potassium content is not low in banana if you look at it from other aspects than weight. I think you're being overly strict on the sources by the way, to the point that you're using it as an excuse to remove content you disagree with. Nothing wrong with those sources and nothing wrong with the comparison I added. However, it should be pointed out that the potassium list you provided (which is a valid source), is inaccurate in the sense that it lists food such as chocolate powder at the top, which is indeed very high in potassium as far as I know, but it's also dry weight and very little water, whereas raw bananas are mostly water. No one eats 100 g of dry chocolate powder. People put something like 30 g or so at most, mixed with milk, so it's not a fair comparison. And milk doesn't have that much potassium either (certainly not more than banana per 100 g); the list you've provided shows dried buttermilk as a high potassium content food, but no one drinks dry milk anyway (ordinary dairy milk you buy in the stores is definitely below banana in potassium per 100 g). HempFan (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You're expressing your personal unscientific opinion to use calories for comparison. Think of the lay audience who may read the banana article for nutrition information. Should this content remain in the article, the encyclopedia user is misled to believe that bananas are a high source of potassium if the presentation is changed to calories from the 100 g USDA and scientifically accepted standard. As stated in WP:PRIMARY: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." If your method was valid, the USDA potassium comparison table would have included it, but as one can see, all the comparisons are based on weight. The USDA table is simply a list of what the agency measured by analyzing potassium content of common foods consumed in the USA; it isn't a valid argument to suggest dry powders can't be compared to raw bananas or avocados. Using 100 g comparisons is the accepted standard worldwide for comparing nutrient contents. --Zefr (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Zefr here; whether we think it's sensible or not to use per 100 g, it's the standard way of giving this information. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Potassium per 100 g or per calories (160 kcal, 100 kcal or whatever) is no more scientific than the other, and neither is matter of opinion. Yes, it's true that 100 g is the benchmark for nutrition, but it's not wrong to look at it from other aspects. I also think you're insulting the intelligence of the average layman, when you're saying that we're misleading anyone. It's not "misleading" to argue that banana is a high potassium source, because it actually is a potassium rich food. If anything is misleading, it's to state otherwise (especially in the article), by using 100 g as the measurement for potassium content, when it's not about 100 g at all. There is mineral water with just about the only nutrition being potassium, which makes it a potassium rich source of nutrition, even though it's not much potassium if we go by 100 g. When you eat food, you want all the nutrition (both macro and micro nutrients) in balanced proportions, so potassium in relation to calories or other nutrients is a relevant aspect if you're keeping track of your nutrition. It's not unusual anyway, to measure potassium in relation to calories, here's an example from some random forum, here's an example from some nutrition website, and here's banana in the top 10 along with avocado. If you look at that USDA list you provided, banana powder is in the top 20, so banana is definitely a good source of potassium, when water is taken out of the equation. I think the article should reflect that. And if anything is original research or opinion, it's to state that banana is not a good potassium source. HempFan (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You're really not understanding the simple point that 100 g is the accepted basis for comparing nutrient contents. Following the USDA potassium ranking table, raw banana per 100 g ranks below more than 1500 other raw or prepared foods. No nutrition professional would agree with your reasoning to use calories or normalized water content (if it were practical to do for nutrient assays) as the standard reference. The sources you offer in the above paragraph - fitday, livestrong, healthaliciousness - are spam, non-WP:SCIRS sources. Please spend some time reading sourcing guidelines, WP:RS, and keep spam references out of the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm understanding that point fine. What you're not understanding however, is that it's not a fair comparison, to say that banana is relatively poor in potassium, by comparing it with for example chocolate powder, which is a concentrated form of cocoa beans basically. Banana powder (also listed very highly in that USDA list) is much richer in potassium than ordinary, raw banana. No one is saying that banana is the number one potassium source anyway, but to say it's a poor source of potassium is simply incorrect. Milk per 100 g definitely has lower potassium content than banana, per 100 g, as you can see here (that's a very typical potassium amount for milk by the way; it's usually around 160 mg), yet the article states that milk has more potassium than banana. I didn't offer the sources nor did I demand that they be put in the article; I only provided them here on the talk page as random examples of people who rank potassium based on calories, for the sake of argument. Their reliability is beside the point, since I haven't even added them in the article in the first place. HempFan (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@HempFan: there are two different issues here:

1. Is potassium per 160 kcal a sensible measure of whether a food is "potassium rich"? According to the USDA data, raw celery contains 2600 mg (2.6 g) per 160 kcal. So if this were a sensible measure, then clearly raw celery would be much better source of potassium than either avocados or bananas. However, to get 160 kcal from raw celery (disregarding the energy involved in chewing and digestion) you'd have to eat 1 kg (2.2 lb) of the stuff. Almost any raw plant material is going to come out high in potassium per kcal, simply because the potassium level will be reasonable and the energy level low. So I conclude that it's not a sensible measure. What most people want to know is the amount of a nutrient per "standard serving", which is related to the mass/bulk of the food, not its calorie content.
2. If it were a sensible measure, could it be added to a Wikipedia article? My view is "no". It necessarily involves WP:SYNTH. It involves combining "potassium content by weight" from one table and "energy content by weight" from another table to reach a conclusion that is not stated in either table, since nowhere in the sources is "potassium content by energy" said to be a measure of the value of a food as a potassium source. It's not the calculation that is the problem, it's the interpretation of the calculated values, for which no reliable source has been provided.

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's only 160 kcal because I used avocado as 100 g, instead of adjusting both both avocado and banana per 100 kcal. I think 100 kcal would be a better, more sensible measure. As it is right now anyway, the article states that banana is a "relatively low" in potassium, well, if it's all relative, then I see no harm in pointing out that banana is relatively rich in potassium based on other criteria than weight. Now, if I had added something like "banana is rich in potassium in relation to its vitamin B3 amount", then yes, that would have been silly, but potassium per calories is sensible enough. HempFan (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@HempFan: your comment above puzzles me; no-one is querying the per 160 kcal issue. I've explained above why "potassium per calories" is (a) not sensible (b) WP:SYNTH. You're welcome to try to convince me that Zefr and I are wrong, but you need to engage with the arguments we've put forward and not simply repeat yourself. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• HempFan & Zefr - Thank you both for going to the talkpage, I personally have no opinion on the content being added/removed however I could see an edit war slowly begin to happen,

Edit warring is one thing that's certainly not tolerated here so it's best to discuss it all rather than revert each other and end up blocked,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the nutrition table contains resourced information regarding potassium content. The opinions expressed in the article text, whether this amount (8% of daily recommended amount per serving) should be called a "good nutrient source" or high versus low nutrient content is superfluous. There could be arguments (as have been made above) whether a comparison is more relevant for the consumer of foods when made in relation to weight or energy value, whether different types of food (as dried powders versus others with a high water content) can be compared in a relevant way, but all this argument is not needed for the encyclopedia. The nutrient table tells all that is needed, and conclusions can be made by the reader, no need for the article-writers' opinions about that.213.222.172.165 (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC).

see more related info: http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data5b.html and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium#cite_note-83

213.222.172.165 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC).

also meat (several fishes, pork, beef, goose, etc) contains more potassium than bananas, the range is about 400 mg per 100 g. it can be justified to underline that it is a misconception that bananas would be any better potassium source than potatoes, meat, seeds and nuts, etc. though i am not sure if there is such a misconception to begin with. but bananas are a pretty good source of potassium just like so many other foodstuffs. it is ranking 1606th in a list of 8121 foodstuffs, so it is still in the top 20%, better than 80% of all listed foods. on the other hand the list itself is not created for such ranking measurements, it contains many processed foods, dried food-materials, spices, and even baking powder - not the typical things that you would compare your lunch with. so bottomline: not exceptional, but quite good potassium source, and measurements best comparable when made on a 100 grams basis, taking care to compare materials that are comparable, not dried powders with fresh vegetables/fruits. 213.222.172.165 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC).

According to the very sources cited for the potassium content of various foods, bananas indeed contain more potassium per 100g than peppers, apricots and milk. Potatoes seem to be the only food listed that actually contains a higher potassium content than banana. Although it is true that there are many foods that are richer in the nutrient, saying that the above mentioned foods are among them is patently incorrect. 65.207.187.66 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

THIS. The information currently contained on the page is objectively factually incorrect (but I don't have the energy or inclination to get involved in a clearly long-running edit-war). The page currently states that bell peppers have more potassium than bananas - THEY DO NOT. Bananas contain more than TWICE the amount of potassium per 100g than bell peppers (358mg [3] vs 175mg [4])*according to the listed sources*. The reason for the confusion is that for some reason the article is referring to the potassium contents of "powdered banana" and "freeze-dried bell peppers" - two things that are very different from the things that most people actually eat on a daily basis. keypunch (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I revised the nutrition discussion and comparison of banana potassium content a) among all foods listed, and b) among just fruits and vegetables as reported in the USDA nutrient database. The key points of the paragraph on potassium content are:

1. there is a popular myth that bananas are an exceptional potassium food
2. in a 100 g amount, a raw banana supplies 358 mg of potassium which is only 8% of the Daily Value, an amount below the 10% DV threshold for labeling banana as a "good source" (let alone the commonly-held belief it is an exceptional source) of potassium
3. from the comprehensive ranking list among potassium-containing foods, there are hundreds of raw, dried and processed foods with higher potassium content than in a banana
4. just among raw, cooked or dried fruits and vegetables that represent easily-obtained foods containing potassium, a raw banana (per 100 g) ranks about 75th in potassium content, shown here.

Hope this gives better clarity to the above disputes. --Zefr (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There are such items as "Orange juice, frozen concentrate, unsweetened, undiluted" "Onions, dehydrated flakes" - nobody can eat them in such amounts as 100-200 g per day Cathry (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed their crude potassium content is not exceptional. I can't even see them being specially recommended in DASH eating plans, like the Mayo's. Their popularity with dieticians might stem from their negligible raw sodium content, low risk of being seasoned with table salt, availability, price and palatability. But that's not a reason to monkey with the numbers. William Avery (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Top 1000 potassium-containing foods"

It is extremely ridiculous to compare bananas with leavening agents, dehydrated onions, etc. Cathry (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no such discussion in the article. The source is a trusted, comprehensive table of potassium content for various foods; the user can browse it for relevant comparisons. --Zefr (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Banana is about bananas, so only allowable info from primary source is about bananas. Your original research is dubious, as it proposes to eat spinach or potatoes to get potassium, but this items are used with salt, (and spinach has many oxalates), so their consumption are less useful for sodium/potassium balance Cathry (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"There is no such discussion" - it is, as there is some "Top 1000 high-potassium foods" with leavenenig agents and spices in top 10. Cathry (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. You're preventing yourself from seeing the obvious, and are making your own opinions about extraneous issues like salt and oxalates. If one focuses on potassium content alone - the point of the article paragraph in question - the ranking of banana becomes clear. --Zefr (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Potassium in food is important as part of sodium/potassium ratio. If someone eat less sodium they will need less potassium. Cathry (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not the issue discussed in the Nutrition section of the article; WP:OFFTOPIC. --Zefr (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This Talk comment indicates the edit was reviewed by another editor, and apparently accepted without further changes. That's two editors agreeing, plus the many months the potassium discussion has been in the article. In other words, the article and specifically the potassium discussion and USDA source were stable until Cathry's reverts. --Zefr (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A comparison with other fruits and vegetables is more useful. Also, you can't really compare the nutritional content per 100g of dried fruit with raw fruit. Using an example mentioned above, powdered banana (dry) will contain much more potassium than a fresh banana. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true, 1491 mg in banana powder or dehydrated. I think, for this article sufficient information about potassium is "358 mg per 100 g in raw bananas" and maybe info about dry item. Comparisons with other food made by editors are original researches. Cathry (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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://web.archive.org/web/20111120221956/http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm

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) 10:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Checks ok. --Zefr (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

Abdisalam1003 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2017 (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. HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)