# Talk:Banana

The first paragraph of 'Ancient spread', added in June, claims that the banana was spread by Austronesians, including to Africa. Three sources are provided, but they do not support the claim. Wikipedia is an evidence-based encyclopedia, and a science article like this one must be based squarely on the scientific evidence. The paragraph needs to be deleted or substantially rewritten to follow the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

However, Perrier 2019 does support the claim, so I've replaced the refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Looking at the detail on this, whilst Perrier 2019 is a good find, there are still some problems.(A) Looking first at Perrier et al 2019, (1) the paper uses some cautious language: "...our tentative reconstruction...". (2) It points out the problems interpreting the archaeological data. "...dating around 2000 BP could therefore be more realistic..." appears in this section, the relevance of which is discussed below. (3) "...the history of the EAB complex should be useful in the effort to elucidate the history of the other popular starchy bananas in Africa, the AAB Plantain subgroup..." reminds the reader that this paper only applies to the East African Banana complex and that other banana groups exist in Africa. (4) the paper concludes that the East African Banana arrived in East Africa from Madagascar/Comoros. This is where Austronesians come in – but note the date that this happened.So we have discussion of the banana appearing in Africa in 2000BP (the revised date suggested in this paper) together with extensive (and appropriate) coverage of the EAB arriving via the settlement of Madagascar/Comoros c. 8th century AD. This later event is clearly associated with Austronesian speakers, as is stated in the paper. It is silent on any attribution for the earlier (2000BP) introduction of the banana. I suggest, quite simply, that nobody knows. Alternatively I could refer you to Waruno Mahdi's suggestion that the Negrito populations that were in ISEA before Austronesians (and after) developed trade routes into the Indian Ocean. (in Campbell, Gwyn. Early Exchange between Africa and the Wider Indian Ocean World (Palgrave Series in Indian Ocean World Studies) (p. 49). Springer International Publishing.) Who knows if Mahdi is right, but the publication of his ideas demonstrates the level of uncertainty.
Problem in the article: Structure of the History section. The second sub-section, "Ancient spread", is further subdivided into "Austronesian trade routes". That suggests the limits of the topic discussed. However, as Denham and Donohue's 2009 paper Pre-Austronesian dispersal of banana cultivars West from New Guinea: linguistic relics from Eastern Indonesia makes clear, the spread of the banana across ISEA (2 or 3 thousand miles) had nothing to do with Austronesians, yet it is stuck in a subsection that implies that it did.
I don't know if this makes any sense. But I feel the article is, at best, confusing on these points. The subject of the introduction of the Banana to Africa is so uncertain that I am not aware of any secondary source that tries to sum it all up – hence the difficulties for the article. ThoughtIdRetired  TIR 20:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to tweak the article to match the source. It seems that some cutting-down of the section will be necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think the section's length, and a degree of covering the same ground twice, make it confusing. I hope to have a go at this later tomorrow or Friday. It is on the list of things to do. ThoughtIdRetired  TIR 21:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:
You are merely blanking all my contributions. You, by these statements, are clearly  asserting some sort of personal ownership of this page. You never engaged in a discussion. YOU are edit warring. 
Stop blanking the Talk:Banana page
Piñanana (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Piñanana (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Piñanana, this is not an appropriate comment for an article talk page. Your statements about me are entirely false, as I have repeatedly explained my reasons, based on policy, in detail on your talk page; and ironically you have seen fit to delete those comments without replying to any of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap:
you claim I refused to discuss, I put them here because they are about this article, which you deleted.
The Biology of Musa L. (banana) - Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, Australian Government
what are you disputing about that?
"repeatedly explained my reasons, based on policy"
your claims were vague, along the tone of "me, right", point to wikikpedia policy please.
My attempt to replace political sources with medical ones were blanked by you.
Piñanana (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for finally coming to the table to discuss. Firstly, I was quite precise, as you would have realized if you had taken time to study the friendly comments I put on your talk page, and the central policies that underlie those, rather than deleting them without replying, as you had the opportunity to do; indeed, I also invited you to discuss here, and you instead decided to put my remarks about your disruptive editing here, which was inappropriate. The existing citations are the correct ones to support the claims made; there are many alternative sources but none of them disagree with what is said and cited already, so there is no need for a change. The claim is that banana is not a specially rich source of potassium, and that is supported highly specifically by the discussion in the cited source; many other sources support that indirectly by giving a value, which we'd then have to compare with other sources in a forbidden piece of Original Research to get the desired result. Therefore, the current source is the correct one. Your remarks about my claims are very close to breaching WP:NPA, for which you can also be blocked, leaving aside your disruptive editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
@Piñanana: I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve in your edits. It seems clear that (a) there are claims that bananas are an especially good source of potassium (b) although like other fruits they are a source of potassium, they are not especially so. Both your version and the previous and current one say this. However, you removed the citations for "Although bananas are commonly thought to contain exceptional potassium content", which does need sourcing. If you have reservations about the Dietitians of Canada reference, then I have some sympathy; it isn't a directly scientific source and feels to me like a promotional website and I would prefer to avoid it for the factual claims. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've removed that ref now, it was redundant anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect בננה has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 13 § בננה until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I have also listed many more foreign redirects there. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Purple bananas has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 15 § Purple bananas until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 02:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The nutrient values should be explained in terms of an average banana.  People know what that is, but not many know what 100 g of banana is. ~2025-32891-11 (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, all food articles use a standard format here, as the FAO and other reliable sources do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)