Talk:Banana production in Iceland

message: According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) page on Iceland, US$328K in bananas were exported to Greenland, Saudi Arabia and Denmark in 2020. --Unimath (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not currently sold? 

message: I followed the link in footnote 11 and displayed the FAO data for 2018 and 2019, and it showed Spain ahead of France. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I suspect the sentence about France is no longer accurate. Iglew (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete statistic? 

message: QI refereed to Ireland as the biggest exporter of bananas in Europe not Iceland  See Fyffes—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.146.50 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the article says it's a myth. If you look at the QI forums, you'll see the full story. See also here.--Rodhullandemu 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Iceland is, however, the biggest banana producing republic in Europe, with Spain being a kingdom. 82.96.59.131 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. The republics of Portugal and Greece are the next biggest producers, as reference [4] shows.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The CS Monitor article is ONLY being used to support the proposition "Icelanders use geothermal heat to grow bananas in frost-covered greenhouses", and I see no reason to disbelieve that as a reliable source. As for removal of the land-use statistics, those are Icelandic government figures, so I suppose they are more reliable than Icelandic banks. Or perhaps not. Either way, I used those figures to demonstrate the real extent of banana production and to provide some context for the article. If you think this should not be done, I'd like to see an argument for excluding ostensible reliable information. Rodhullandemu 19:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: You seem to be reading "commercial" into the context of "production", and the article neither states nor implies that. If I bought some chemicals from a factor and made some LSD in my kitchen, I would be "producing" it, but that would not necessarily imply a commercial venture; so it is with this article. As you say, "it is however, possible to grow bananas in greenhouses"- if that is not "production", I don't know what is. If you really object to "production", however, please feel free to propose a move to "Banana growing in Iceland", although I feel that might weaken the impact of the article. The fact that it happens/happened sufficiently for figures to be recorded in agricultural statistics (which were provided by Bændur Félag Íslands) makes it, in my opinion, worthy of some note. As for who may write articles about what, our neutrality policy implies that there is no sensible reason for any editor to write articles solely on matters with which they are acquainted; rather the opposite, so that bias is not apparent. You might see that I have written many articles on topics with which I was previously unfamiliar- but I did the research, cited my sources, and had them accepted. That's good enough for me. Rodhullandemu 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Obviously it would be better if I could find and read sources in Icelandic, but that is one of the Nordic languages that I have not had the opportunity to study, and even so, sources in English are preferred on the English Wikipedia. But to step back a little, the article arose, as mentioned in it, because of an item on QI, and I determined to research the facts, and present them here. It wasn't easy, and sometimes I wish I hadn't bothered. Most people don't understand the context. But when I did that, I had no local knowledge, so had to rely upon outside sources; in fact, if I had not so relied, I would have been guilty of original research and the article would have fallen at the first hurdle. That it has survived for nearly two years is perhaps testament to its notability; I feel it takes perhaps a minor question on a UK quiz show and gives it some encyclopedic value. Rare for QI, because they don't cite sources, whereas we here are required to do so. That's not to say I feel the article is perfect, because I have yet to see a perfect article. But for the time being, it explains an anomaly, a curiosity, perhaps, and does so with reliable sources. If my efforts here are really unwanted, I have other things I could be doing. Rodhullandemu 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  QI 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: We have several articles here on the template of "Banana production in X"; normally, these articles would deal with countries for which banana production is the norm, being at least temperate or sub-tropical countries in which this might be expected. However, the idea of producing such berries in an alien environment seems to me to be worthy of mention, particularly since a notable UK television programme has seen fit to make a point of the situation, albeit arguably for some humorous effect. Nevertheless, the article is well-sourced, and on a par with the English tendency to highlight notable quirky situations, such as Tiddleywink, Walter Potter and Henry Jenkins. OK, the article is a stub, and maybe is never going to rise above that- but that is no excuse for its removal. However, it is an article which (a) states the reasons why the concept may be of interest to readers and (b) sets out the facts behind the myth. The article has also been referred to externally, perhaps not that seriously, but it has attracted some attention. We have articles that, although perfectly serious, are used for humorous purposes, and even make it to the main page as Featured Articles - see Ima Hogg. But this article is serious in its intent, and those who would seek to judge it should get a sense of perspective. It should stay, at least as an example that Wikipedia is not just for boring crap.
Rodhullandemu 02:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested PROD