Talk:Watermelon/Archive 1

message: Please discuss large deletions in talk. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I've deleted (twice now) the ugly, stereotypical, cartoonish image of a black woman (mammy archetype) eating watermelon.  As I made clear in my edit note, it contributes little, if anything, of substance to the article and is gratuitously offensive.  Blacks are also stereotypically associated with chicken.  What?  No image of a chicken-stealing black person in the chicken article?  No ugly, stereotypical image of an Asian in the article on rice or sushi?  A similarly unflattering representation of a white in the article on mayonnaise or white bread (if one existed)?  How 'bout bagels or gefilte fish?  Or whale blubber (if such an article existed)? This garbage doesn't belong.  Gone.  deeceevoice 21:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is racist and offensive, that's true, but we can't delete the past and pretend it didn't happen. As the text makes clear, watermelon was uniquely involved in racism against blacks, moreso than chicken or anything else. See here for pages of examples. For many decades, when most white Americans heard the word "watermelon", they thought "That's what those crazy nigros eat." I certainly don't condone stereotyping of blacks, but it happened, and I don't think we should sweep it under the rug, either. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
It hasn't been swept under the rug; it is mentioned clearly in the article.  In fact, I wrote the text which initially connected watermelon to Africa and African Americans.  However, there is a point at which one tires of the same old racist images -- particularly when they are completely unnecessary and offensive.  IMO, the photo is far more appropriate in an article treating racism.  Again, where are the stereotypical photos of hook-nosed Jews eating matzoa, or of "greasy" Italians eating spaghetti?  deeceevoice 01:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: To poke fun of a race or ethnic group culinary habits and culture is a form of racial stereotypes, it can be offensive and deragatory to show a black person (African-American) eat watermelons for negative reasons. Same will apply to Mexicans eat tacos all the time, but it is part of Mexican cuisine at the first place, but not to be used as an act of comedy or to be shown in an image to make fun of another race. Watermelons is said to originated in Africa, but was a symbol of diets during slavery could remind people of a shameful time (to open a sore wound) and a low-cost food to denote poverty among African-Americans, since watermelons seem to cost less than other fruits in US stores. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gratuitious racism

message: I see we have some strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I thought I'd start a straw poll to see if we can acheive consensus.
Relevant text in article:
:In former times, African Americans were depicted in racist caricatures as being inordinately fond of watermelon.  The image of the watermelon, allusions to eating watermelon, and so forth, still may be seen as offensive.
=== Yes, the watermelon caricature image should be included in this article ===
# – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
#Billy P 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Quadell, it's not what encyclopedias ordinarily do in articles about a fruit — take a look at any encyclopedia but this one for its entry on "watermelon."  It's what they do in articles about racism. The problem with Wikipedia putting it in an article about a plant indeed is: perpetuating the stereotype by associating that image with a watermelon entry, using unencyclopedic style, and using bad taste in inclusion choices. What is so problematic about the idea of adding more information to the part of the Racism in the United States article that mentions "stereotypes" and putting the image there near the other postcard already in the article? — Bebop 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *I see it the other way around. Why include the drawing? What does it add to your understanding of the watermelon? In an article on watermelons, we mention that racists associate watermelons with blacks, usually with a negative connotation. Somebody who did not know that and encounters such a black/watermelon reference will look it up here and find out pretty much all there is to know. What does it add to the article to say "And here is a drawing of what one such person thinks a black person eating a watermelon would look like"? That basically constitutes bumping up the racist black/watermelon thing to an artificially important status. Gzuckier 17:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *If we didn't have a section in the article on "symbolism" that includes other types of symbolism than racism, I would remove the textual reference entirely and leave it for the racism articles, but we do have one, so a brief reference is merited while it remains. When one thinks of a watermelon, however, the first thing entering most people's minds is not a racist caricature, nor should we teach children for centuries to directly associate watermelons in their minds with racist images in a "watermelon" entry. You will not find that done in other encyclopedias for taste reasons. So the fact that one might include a textual mention in a symbolism section in this particular article does not mean we also have to highlight it with an image; we can include an image to illustrate an article on racism.  — Bebop 18:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *The image and the text should stay. Additionally, the text should be revised to indicate that this stereotype still exists, at least in some sections of the United States.  When the US Navy has it's annual "African American Respect" dinner, it serves fried chicken, collard greens, and watermelon totally without irony. (I've not voted as this vote is a train wreck, and it's doubleplusungood to vote on everything.)brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on watermelon caricature image 

message: # – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
#Billy P 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, the watermelon caricature image should be included in this article 

message: # No!!! See my comments above and below. deeceevoice 15:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, the watermelon caricature image should not be included 

message: # The image should stay with the information about watermelons and racism.  That said, the whole set should probably be moved to racism in the United States and expanded. -SCEhardt 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image and associated text should be moved to another article 

message: Rationale:  Persons simply wishing basic information on a fairly prosaic subject like watermelon, or spaghetti, or matzoa, or rice, (or anything that has a pejorative ethnic stereotype associated with it) should not have to deal with offensive, racist images such as that earlier inserted into this article.  Wiki contributors dealt successfully with this issue earlier in the article on African American and Negro.  The consensus reached was that the articles should deal with the subject at hand, with ancillary issues, such as racist monikers, placed in an appropriate article elsewhere, where additional information and greater context could be provided.  (I have made a similar suggestion with the article on Blacks and have removed the table of terms, pending further discussion.)
The alternative is numerous ongong edit wars involving other items associated with other ethnicities in which well-meaning or racist individuals— or those who are trying to press a point— will continually insert offensive, racist materials whenever and wherever they feel appropriate.  The approach suggested above, IMO, is the most responsible and, IMO, most reasonable approach: the presentation of information, by all means -- but in its proper context and with adequate explanation.
Blacks are the ONLY ethnic group on Wikipedia subjected to such indignities -- as though such racist vitriol/propaganda is a part of what defines them/us as a people.  Look at any article on any other group on Wikipedia.  Nowhere is there a table of racial or ethnic slurs on the same page that treats them as a general subject.  Hell, you can't even find an article on "kike" on Wikipedia, but there is a page with a few, brief sentences for "Chink", "Dago" -- but "Spic," "Wop" and "Kike" have no page/article at all and redirect to a list of ethnic slurs. "Nigger", however, merits a lengthy article, where the word is discussed ad nauseam.  And, no, I don't have a problem with the article on nigger; I've contributed to it extensively.  However, given the pervasiveness of anti-black racism, this business gets exceedingly wearisome, and I'm fed up with it.  Do you see any example of an advertising card with a yellow-skinned Asian with a pigtail and squinty eyes smiling toothily over a basket of rice in rice?  Nope.  How 'bout one of a big, fat Italian mama in spaghetti?  How about a photo of a bunch of Latino gangbangers crammed into a bright, red low rider with a madonna, dice and crap all over the place for Latino?  The time for automatic insertion of such garbage in otherwise wholly unrelated articles is past.  Wikipedia is supposed to be an intelligent source of information -- not one which perpetuates the ignorant, racist associations of the past.  It's time to stop playing what amount to racist word association games with this project and be responsible arbiters (not censors) of information.  The approach to this issue suggested above is enlightened, sensible and thorough.  I urge others to support it.  Peace. deeceevoice 17:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image and associated text should be moved to the article dealing with [[racism]] in a section on racist iconography, with an appropriate link to this article.

message: * Let's try to be respectful here. There are intelligent people on both sides of the debate.
* See here for many examples of how common the watermelon-racism connection was. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
*I think if there's a section in the article on the racist associations of Watermelon, then the image strengthens that section. If it's too offensive, that's good. So is racism. Perhaps, though, the picture and section of the article could be moved to an article on racism, and the watermelon article could simply have a link.
*Precisely my earlier point.  I am not hypersensitive in matters such as this.  I wrote much of the article on blackface and contributed the Golliwogg images to various articles on Wikipedia.  In fact, my earlier edits to this piece actually upsized and staggered the image.  However, upon reconsideration, I decided the image was inappropriate and needlessly provocative/offensive.  It does have a possible place, however, in an article on racism.  If the decision is to keep it here, then, gee, I'll feel compelled to likewise hunt up similar, ugly stereotypical images of Jews, Italians, Asians, Latinos, Irish, etc., for the various foods and other things which commonly have been associated with those groups over the years.  Let's see, now:  Greeks doing unspeakable things in goat; uh, a hook-nosed Jew with a tail in an article in money lending or usury; an obese, olive-skinned, greasy-haired sleazoid-looking Italian for gangster; a sleepy-eyed Latino in a huge sombrero for Mexico; a yellow-skinned, sloe-eyed, bucktoothed, bespectacled Asian for sushi; a yellow-skinned, pig-tailed, bowing Chinaman for rice -- you get my drift.  Pretty appalling stuff when the shoe is on the other foot -- huh? deeceevoice 15:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Quadell, it's not what encyclopedias ordinarily do in articles about a fruit — take a look at any encyclopedia but this one for its entry on "watermelon."  It's what they do in articles about racism. The problem with Wikipedia putting it in an article about a plant indeed is: perpetuating the stereotype by associating that image with a watermelon entry, using unencyclopedic style, and using bad taste in inclusion choices. What is so problematic about the idea of adding more information to the part of the Racism in the United States article that mentions "stereotypes" and putting the image there near the other postcard already in the article? — Bebop 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *I see it the other way around. Why include the drawing? What does it add to your understanding of the watermelon? In an article on watermelons, we mention that racists associate watermelons with blacks, usually with a negative connotation. Somebody who did not know that and encounters such a black/watermelon reference will look it up here and find out pretty much all there is to know. What does it add to the article to say "And here is a drawing of what one such person thinks a black person eating a watermelon would look like"? That basically constitutes bumping up the racist black/watermelon thing to an artificially important status. Gzuckier 17:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *If we didn't have a section in the article on "symbolism" that includes other types of symbolism than racism, I would remove the textual reference entirely and leave it for the racism articles, but we do have one, so a brief reference is merited while it remains. When one thinks of a watermelon, however, the first thing entering most people's minds is not a racist caricature, nor should we teach children for centuries to directly associate watermelons in their minds with racist images in a "watermelon" entry. You will not find that done in other encyclopedias for taste reasons. So the fact that one might include a textual mention in a symbolism section in this particular article does not mean we also have to highlight it with an image; we can include an image to illustrate an article on racism.  — Bebop 18:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *The image and the text should stay. Additionally, the text should be revised to indicate that this stereotype still exists, at least in some sections of the United States.  When the US Navy has it's annual "African American Respect" dinner, it serves fried chicken, collard greens, and watermelon totally without irony. (I've not voted as this vote is a train wreck, and it's doubleplusungood to vote on everything.)brenneman(t)(c) 01:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: It doesn't look like there's a clear consensus, but the bulk of commenters seemed to me like they would be okay with the following compromize:
#We take the image out of this article, but leave the text in.
#We insert the image and text into some article dealing with racism - perhaps Racism in the U.S. or Racist iconography in the U.S. or something - under a watermelon subheading there.
#We include a link to that article from the watermelon page, perhaps as a "see also".
(This is very similar to options 3 or 4 above.)
This isn't what I'd wanted, and it may not be what folks on other side of the fence consider a perfect solution either - but is this solution acceptable to most folks? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
* Agreed as to taking the image out and moving it to a racism article, such as the one that already has a racist postcard image in its discussion on racial stereotyping. Agreed as to including some textual reference to racism in the watermelon article, only if we are going to keep in it a "Watermelon as symbolism" section, but the current text needs work. As to the link to another article — there is already a link in the watermelon article to an article on racism that might be a good place for the image and info without needing to add extra links. But if you are going to put the racist postcard image and info regarding stereotyping into a different article on racism than that one, such as one on iconography or the one on racism in the United States (which has some of the same images as the "racism" article), I suppose you could work a link to it into the article, if it's necessary. The watermelon article will also obviously be linked to from the racism article's future text reference to watermelons if the word is used.  — Bebop 21:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My interpretation of the votes so far

message: This article states that blacks eating watermelons is considered a derogatory caricature. I have seen this mentioned elsewhere, but do not understand it. Could someone explain what is so derogatory about eating watermelon? Even if black people did have a particular liking for it, why would it be any more offensive than showing Italians eating pasta, Asians eating rice or Jews eating bagels?
It more fits under "discrimination" itself, and has not much to do with watermelons. However it has happened as it looks. Such illustrations are acceptable into a page like watermelon/discrimination. (for education purpose, it needs explanatory terms "degoratory carricature"). Currently i am discussing the slash pages issue (how/if it can be done) at the "village pump" (proposals). Wikipedia is not doing censorship, but IMO it is not wrong to put annoying information into a sub-page. alex 08:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it anywhere on the page.  I came here to find out about the history of watermelons (which I found) and the stereotype of African Americans liking watermelons and that being associated with discrimination (which I didn't find). 89.33.208.1 (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacks eating watermelon 

message: The point currently under uses about the conversion of cirtruline to argenine seems most appropriate in the nutrition section where the former is also mentioned. The second paragraph of the nutrition section is almost entirely about uses. I didn't go back and look through the edits to find its origin, but I really don't understand how anyone could interpret pickling practices, southern US or Chinese usages etc. as having any bearing on nutrition.
In other words, these sections could use some cleanup. Unless someone has an important objection, or its edited before I review it again next week, I plan to do some reorganization by putting more information in the proper context.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.54.230 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rearranged the sections, changed "Nutrition" to "Food use" and changed "Uses" to "Other uses". Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition/Uses Cleanup