Talk:Banana (person)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] POV
This stub is 1) not interesting 2) obscure 3) totally POV It should either be cleaned up, merged or deleted IMHO.
Looks like a prank of some sort. Also plainly offensive, with little academic merit.
- 1)"Banana" is a term used in that subculture.
- 2)The article itself describes a book with the word "banana" in the title used in this sense.
- 3)If you would like to specify which parts are POV we can NPOV it. NPOV doesn't mean POVs can't be described. Samw 00:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Classifying
This whole subject makes the assumption that a person is ontologically defined as a thing with a central substance and an outer appearance... just like eggs, bananas, and so on. Although I don't think that any specific chart has ever been laid out, some degree of analysis is in order.
Q. #1: Starting ethnicity/culture
- This must be addressed since it is the difference between this and the assumed form that brings the issue to talk.
Q. #2: Assumed ethnicity/culture
- Always different in some manner.
Q. #3: Occupation/gender
- While occupation and gender are two totally different things, I feel that is unnecessary to seperate them since only one of these is usually influencing the perceptions of others rather than both individually. It should noted that "occupation" is sometimes the same as "culture" from the two previous questions.
Q. #4: Background of labelers
- Since the labelers can be of any ethnic/cultural type themselves, it should be noted that this can influence the nature of the label.
Sadly, this is hopelessly simplistic, but it may be helpful. Sweetfreek 04:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Transwiki to wikitionary
I reverted the transwiki to Wikitionary. If this were put to a VfD, the results should be similar to Egg (person), thus the conclusion should be keep. 03:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Please be specific here. You did not revert the transwiki - the article's contents are still in Wiktionary. You merely reverted the soft-redirect - the tag that said that the dictionary definition had been moved over.
Had this article been through a VfD (now AFD) discussion, it is not at all clear what the decision would have been. You are correct that egg (person) was "kept" but it was explicitly kept as a "no consensus" decision. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Egg (person).) That makes it a poor precedent. The vast majority of AFD debates about dictionary definitions end as "keep" with a specific recommendation to transwiki them to Wiktionary. For some reason, none of the participants proposed transwiki in the egg discussion. I strongly suspect that was an oversight rather than a deliberate choice. Certainly had I seen it, I would have argued for a transwiki.
Even if it had been through it's own AFD and even if the result had been an unambiguous "keep" decision, that does not make the article immune from future editing. AFD is concerned with the simple decision of whether or not the content and history are so bad that they must be deleted from the project. In this case, neither the history nor the content have been destroyed. The content has been merely merged to a more appropriate page - in this case, wikt:egg. The history remains here (which preserves the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL).
Pagemoves, even transwiki-pagemoves, are actions which can be taken by any reader/editor. They do not require AFD discussions. If you disagree with the decision to merge, let's discuss it here. I believe that the content belonged in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary| has been established policy since long before I joined the project. The contents of this article were a detailed discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of a word. That is a dictionary definition. It is not the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged encyclopedia. It is, however, the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary.
I see no possibility that this article can ever be expanded past a dictionary definition and into an encyclopedia article. If you expand it appropriately, though, I'll stop arguing. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is virtually the same discussion as at Talk:Egg (person). Let's continue it there. Samw 03:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think we can consolidate these discussions. Each article will stand or fall on the basis of the specific facts and content of the article. Some articles are expandable past mere dic-def status. Others are not.
- I'm willing to be proven wrong about this article. If you can show me where in the current article there is more than the discussion of the meaning, origins, synonyms, antonyms and/or usage of the word, I will withdraw my objections. Rossami (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why not merge them all into one article on Terms describing persons whose ethnicity differs from their cultural characteristics? -- BD2412 talk 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the social phenomenon you want to write about is acculturation (or perhaps the drill-down article transculturation). The fact that negative stereotypes are applied to those who are successfully acculturing is already touched on in the current section on "Homogenization versus ethnoconvergence". Some specific examples might be an appropriate elaboration there. But once you've done that, is there really enough material for a stand-alone article? Rossami (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, now the sociologist in me comes out... acculturation and transculturation are similar, but not quite the same. Acculturation is probably the better match, as it captures the sense of members of one group adopting the characteristics of another, so I would say merge them all to a section of that article, perhaps under the heading of "negative responses to acculturation" or the like. -- BD2412 talk 19:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think the social phenomenon you want to write about is acculturation (or perhaps the drill-down article transculturation). The fact that negative stereotypes are applied to those who are successfully acculturing is already touched on in the current section on "Homogenization versus ethnoconvergence". Some specific examples might be an appropriate elaboration there. But once you've done that, is there really enough material for a stand-alone article? Rossami (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why not merge them all into one article on Terms describing persons whose ethnicity differs from their cultural characteristics? -- BD2412 talk 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: While containing some dictionary elements (as any encyclopedia article about terminology must), this article is already beyond a dicdef: it contains literary and cultural references which are not integral to the etymology of the term. —siroχo 11:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Would you please be specific about what "literary and cultural references" you see in this article? They are not obvious to me. In contrast, what I see are a few examples of usage. Usage is appropriate content for an unabridged dictionary. Rossami (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- References to "Banana Boys" aren't typically part of a dictionary defintion. That's why I asked for an example of a "featured definition" over at Wiktionary. OED cites usages, but most dictionaries do not and it's not clear to me Wiktionary does that. Per my arguments at egg (person), if we agree these articles should be transwikied why not "nigger"? Is it merely because "nigger" is more notable than "banana"? If so, then the discussion should be around notability critiera. Samw 03:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but the reference to "Banana Boys" merely illustrates to me that the word "banana" is in use as described in the definition. It provides evidence in the form of a novel's title. The novel itself is not otherwise encyclopedic. (It has a current Amazon Sales Ranking of 1,075,708 - well below the generally accepted threshold for inclusion of book summaries.) Other than evidence of usage, I don't see that the line about "Banana Boys" adds anything to the article. OED is not the only dictionary to cite usage, though I will concede that many dictionaries choose to omit usage in their abridged versions. Wiktionary explictly does accept discussions of usage, though not every definition has them. As with Wikipedia, Wiktionary grows based on the interests and time of individual volunteers. You can find more at Wiktionary:Community Portal.
The counter-example of nigger is problematic. When that article was discussed, a lot of people argued that it was putting Wikipedia on the slippery slope - that it should be moved to Wiktionary. The people arguing to keep an encyclopedia article on the term assured the rest of the community that no, it was the exception and that similar articles would not be allowed to proliferate. Sadly, the cynics appear to have been right. Rossami (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, "Banana Boys" merely illustrates usage of the word. However, I think it is encyclopedic. It has 12,000 Google hits. It's not only a book but a play[1] that has been reviewed by major Canadian newspapers, is supported by major arts funding agencies and has toured in at least 2 major Canadian cities. I believe that establishes notability for "Banana Boys". If we agree "Banana Boys" is notable, then I would argue the root word "Banana" is also notable. BTW, I learned about "Banana Boys" from this article.
I wasn't part of the "nigger" debate but totally agree it should stay. The only issue is whether other similar words are equally notable. Samw 23:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- You have some reasonable claims for the notability of "Banana Boys". I personally disagree but that is clearly a judgment call. However, there is no basis for the next step in your logic chain that if "Banana Boys" is notable, the word "Banana" must also be notable. Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land is notable and encyclopedic. The word stranger is not (though it does belong in the dictionary). Rossami (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Banana is notable and worthy of an article because of its uniqueness. "Stranger" is used in the common sense of the word in "Stranger in a strange land". "Banana" is not obvious in "Banana Boys" and deserves an explanation. BTW, "stranger" may well one day be an article. Dealing with strangers is an important life skill for children. Societal attitudes towards strangers is another aspect. Samw 00:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I reiterate IMHO "stranger" is worthy of an article. We have articles on cuteness and innocence and I don't know what else! Samw 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but the reference to "Banana Boys" merely illustrates to me that the word "banana" is in use as described in the definition. It provides evidence in the form of a novel's title. The novel itself is not otherwise encyclopedic. (It has a current Amazon Sales Ranking of 1,075,708 - well below the generally accepted threshold for inclusion of book summaries.) Other than evidence of usage, I don't see that the line about "Banana Boys" adds anything to the article. OED is not the only dictionary to cite usage, though I will concede that many dictionaries choose to omit usage in their abridged versions. Wiktionary explictly does accept discussions of usage, though not every definition has them. As with Wikipedia, Wiktionary grows based on the interests and time of individual volunteers. You can find more at Wiktionary:Community Portal.
[edit] Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 21:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mainstream press usage
Just for reference: The "twinkie" variant of this term is used in this mainstream newspaper article. These archetypes of Asians in America — the immigrant, the over-achiever/model minority, the assimilated Twinkie (yellow outside, white inside) — obviously do not capture the entirety of reality, but I understand them because I traversed through them in 20 years.
And a pop culture reference, the King of the Hill episode (season 10, ep6) Orange You Sad I Did Say Banana? SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Banana usage
I would have to say this article is not really accurate on its usage. I've often heard it used in Malaysia and sometimes in NZ. The term twinkie is of course almost exclusively American Nil Einne 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
