Talk:Banana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Banana was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
December 9, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Plants (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Potassium content[edit]

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, –Davey2010Talk 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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

See also section please[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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