From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article is in need of cleanup, so I hope that someone comes along with sources that are not blogs to add to this article. And I'm not sure that the related terms section should stay unless these terms can be substantiated with more, and better, citations. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also too much conjecture in the footnotes, especially for things like justifying the listing of 'Isaac' in the related terms section. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well-sourced[edit]

  • "Isaac" was vandalism. One blog is mentioned as "an example from the blogosphere", nothing else. Most of the other sources are newspapers. Very, very, very well-referenced article. Shaundakulbara 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • 1)Just because you disagree with an edit does not make that edit vandalism.
    • 2)I don't understand why most of the section for Homo Thug discusses the term's similarities and differences to 'Isaac' without first introducing the term Isaac. Please defend this decision. Tritium6 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN - The "Isaac" bit was VANDALISM. It's not part of the article. You were fooled, and the problem between you and I is a misunderstanding. Let's drop it. Shaundakulbara 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are saying that 'Isaac' has no place in the article. I'm fine with that, but the Homo Thug description then needs to be reworded to stand on its own without comparison to the Isaac term. I'll do it. Tritium6 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Homo thug is being compared to BANJEE. Stop thinking about Isaac. There's no Isaac. Shaundakulbara 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men[edit]

Yes, Men who have sex with men was the term used in the author's version of the article and correctly identifies who is being discussed. Thank you for changing this back. I have been so busy reverting vandalism I have missed more subtle bad edits. Shaundakulbara 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's offensive comment that I can see but cannot remove[edit]

Someone has edited this page to show "NIGGER are everywhere... or they can be black monkeys too, screw them, KKK" before the definintion of Banjee girl. It's not showing in the code. Can someone remove it please.. ta

  • I removed it already, thank you. The revision may show on your end if you refresh your browser. Thanks again...keeping this article free of vandalism is my full-time job today as the creator is on hiatus. Help is appreciated. Shaundakulbara 20:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


WP:BLP applies to any article that includes material related to living persons. The Banjee article presently identifies the living person in the article photo as a banjee. The article includes a detailed quote by living person Tim'm T. West about being a Banjee. Use of information about living persons in this article puts the article under the WP:BLP requirements. -- Jreferee 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a biography (which is what the B in BLP stands for). This article is not about Tim'm T. West per se. The {{BLP}} tag is out of place here, though of course that doesn't mean editors have free rein to add unsourced defamatory info about anyone here, either! —Angr 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jreferee isn't saying the article is a biography. Jreferee is saying that it falls under WP:BLP requirements. Is Jreferee correct? I don't know. WP:BLP is a long, boring-looking page and I have no desire to digest right now. I do advise that you give it a thorough going over through before this erupts in needless debate. God knows there are enough of them on Wikipedia at any given time already. Thanks! Shaundakulbara 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies "to biographical material about living persons in other articles." If Template BLP were limited to biographies, then Template BLP would read something like "This biography must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" or "This article related to living persons must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" However, template BLP states "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" and thus placement of the BLP template is not restricted by topic. {{WPBiography}} has a parameter to {{WPBiography}} where someone can add living=yes and the text of the BLP template appears. Restricting template BLP to only article having biography topics makes template BLP useless since {{WPBiography}} already serves that function. In reviewing this, I discovered that use of Template BLP on other than biography topics is controversial. Since the controversy is beyond the Banjee article, Talk:Banjee is not a place to resolve such an issue. -- Jreferee 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and see what people there think. —Angr 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Ok, we have some info on when and where the term first cropped up but there isn't any on the why of the word 'banjee'. What is its derivation?-- (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Rupaul's usage of the term in Rupaul's Drag Race[edit]

There have been several challenges on the show where contestants need to portray what rupaul calls "Banjee girl realness", where the contestants come out in urban female wear, a few key items being bamboo hoop earrings, bandanas and white singlets. this is contradictory to the definition of the word in it's original meaning, but it seems to come from the same vein. The word banjee may have been reappropriated in gay culture to refer to Puerto Rican/ African American/ Carribean youth of both genders, rather than just the gay males of those demographics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:840C:2000:F196:383:9BEC:3495 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)