Talk:Watermelon/Archive 1

Various
Is it really necessary to create a whole disambiguation page just to deal with a minor redirect like watermelon (politics)? Or can this be done with a simple one-liner notice at the start of this page? &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 142.177.114.12 (talk &bull; contribs) 18:51, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

This page realy piqued my interest in watermelon. For me, a person who loves watermelon and gets a slice whenever possible, thinking it carried a mal connotation was almost too much. Interesting though. [TALK AND RESPOND TO ABOVE STATEMENT]

Oh, and yeah.

Selecting watermelons
[ This was forwarded by email, source attribution unknown. I'll leave it up to the regulars to decide if this should get added or not]

Choose firm, symmetrical, fruit free of cracks, bruises, soft spots or mold. Ripe watermelon will have a healthy sheen, a dull rind, dried stem, and a buttery yellow underside where it touched the ground. There should be a melon like smell or fragrance. Thump if you must, sound should be dull and hollow. Lift them, weight should be heavy for size.

Special Tip Avoid watermelons that are very hard, white or very pale green in color on the underside, indicating immaturity. An immature watermelon will be slightly acidic.

Storing Once picked, watermelon will not ripen easily. If unripe, try putting the whole melon in paper bag un-refrigerated. This sometimes works to ripen them. Watermelons can be kept for short periods of time, up to 2 weeks, uncut at room temperature. Wash watermelon with soap and water before cutting. Once cut, package what is not eaten in closed plastic containers or bags and put back in the refrigerator.


 * Why is it the above was even considered on this page without doing research since there was no source listed above to cite in the article for this information? The Wikipedia policy on citing sources and the Fact Checking Project's goals are being ignored a lot lately in how contributors seem to go about writing articles without remembering to use encyclopedic standards. People need to read the styleguide.


 * Need to Check Sources on Origin in U.S. We stated watermelon was introduced to the South by slaves without citing sources or mentioning other places it was introduced prior to the South in the U.S. The American historical origin section focuses on it being farmed "for centuries" in the "South" when it is shown present in the colonies in Massachussetts (1629), per the 1986 World Book Encyclopedia and this academic Washington State University site, moving down to the Deep South a few decades later. This article in the two cited references at the end of the story (which the History file reveals were put in early on for specific scientific and ancient origin info, not for many of the additions like "Watermelon as food and drink") shows the Egyptian heritage, the Moors first taking the fruit to Europe, the Spanish taking it to the N. American Indians by the 1500s, and then it being rampantly cultivated in Europe (in the same 1600s era the American colonies first got it in Mass. Bay Colony).


 * Without finding authoritative source info, we should be careful of assumptions we make in the article. As for the Southern connection, the Southern weather appears to have made the crop flourish more in the South, so it seems to have eventually been more widely grown in the South and a favorite food there, but historically, among the first to have it in the Americas were the American Indians (from the Spanish) and the New Englanders (mostly likely from European settlers), then likely it travelled down from the North. Therefore without better source info, the current sentence doesn't really belong in the article worded that way. (Update &mdash; a couple of days ago I added info and sources showing that slaves helped bring them over; I previously had been concerned with Wikipedia being careful on facts when I initiated this discussion. I appreciate that deecee's passage led me to find out history info that interests me. The article research and text will continue to evolve in the future. Bebop 06:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC))


 * Anyway, I just wanted to remind people to cite sources and not leave in statements with no reliable source to put in the References supporting it. People around the world rely on this; "facts" here shouldn't be coming from people's hip pockets (that goes for me too). &mdash; Bebop 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm the person who inserted the passage regarding the origin of watermelon in the U.S. And, no, you needn't remind me to do my research.  There are a number of sites and sources that state Africans introduced watermelon into the U.S. After reading the opening of your comments, I searched the web and inserted a source for the African American theory.  However, upon reading rest of your comments and the passage you cite, there seem to be varying points of regional introduction by different peoples in the U.S. over time -- European colonists in Massachusetts, African slaves and Native Americans.  I live in D.C. and will check with the USDA library to see what they have to say and report back.  deeceevoice 20:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was more intending to remind all of us, rather than picking on any one person, to cite sources because the References section was sparse in the story. It's easy for any of us to forget. I started thinking about the sentence about slaves bringing in the watermelons in the article section on watermelon origins after reviewing the article's history tab because of earlier versions of the racism section of the article where someone had been talking about the racist connection not being "spurious," which you fortunately edited out eventually. Then I looked and just didn't see a real reason to assume slaves had brought in the watermelons despite some recipe site comments. But it's an interesting subject, whoever actually introduced the melons to the South. It seems clear that since watermelons appeared in Massachusetts first in the Colonies and since Europe had them in great abundance by then, that there is a good chance there are many sources who might have brought them to the South in the mid 1600s. There may be a Spanish connection in the case of Florida and a Native American connection as well. Good luck with the research; I'm sure you will adjust the reference accordingly as to whatever results your research brings you; thanks for reading my request. &mdash; Bebop 21:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I recall researching this some time ago for another purpose, and a USDA library source indicated the route of introduction was quite specifically Africa/African slaves. It also mentioned that watermelons were known in Latin America. I figured, as a government institution with an extensive library devoted to the origin of agricultural products in the U.S., it was a reputable source. However, I was unable to resurrect the print source, so settled for the food-guy reference and figured I'd contact the USDA later and see what they had to say. The information subsequently provided in the article (which I also saw later online) seems thorough, so I'm more than satisfied. Incidentally, the language about "watermelon sightings" gave me a chuckle. Peace. deeceevoice 02:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A day or two ago, I provided specific research citations by U.S. academic & South African museum sources indicating more than one route (including African slaves, certainly), so until I am shown a definitive source indicating otherwise (which is unlikely to do more than demonstrate a conflict of opinions we can note) I am more comfortable with the current language on the origins in America. There is a Texas A&M PhD article showing European colonists and Russian immigrants distributing them, in addition to African slaves, but I have become confident you are right that slaves were a part of the distribution origins from reading online sources. Also, the Florida Native Americans were said to have gotten them from the Spanish by the mid 1600s (the Spanish had gotten them from the Moors), so some people got them from slaves, and others got them from other sources. By the time the Americas were getting them (1500s from the Spanish, 1600s in early British settlements), they were very common across Europe, per S. Africa museum article and others stating that by the 1600s they were plentiful in Europe; would be hard to rule out European colonists as helping distribute them per the essay by Texas A&M professor Parsons.


 * I apologize for not having previously till now updated & edited the comments I originally made initiating this discussion before I found some authorities showing slaves helped bring them over. Even though you hadn't cited sources, there was certainly reason to think slaves helped bring them over (but we need to have good source citations; the Watermelon as Food and Drink section others wrote still needs sources cited, for example). Bebop 03:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Question on red colour....
Is the watermelon red inside or does it turn red upon cutting open? i.e oxidation of iron? (or any other substance) like the way a /cut/ apple turns brown upon contact with air.

I don't know where I read it but I remember reading that it's white inside but turns red immediately upon cutting?

Can anyone confirm this?


 * No it does not change. But there are natural variations. Some melon cultivars are yellow in color when ripe. An unripe melon would be greenish white. Pollinator 23:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * And if you think about it, it takes a while for the apple to brown up. I don't think the melon would be able to do it so quickly.  Certainly would be interesting if that was what happened, though.--67.42.105.228 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)


 * I think you're thinking of what happens to boiled lobsters.

Square watermelons
Can anyone add a reference to square watermelons ? This is really interesting, and should be mentioned.

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

Gratuitious racism
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)


 * 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)

I see someone else agrees with me. :p deeceevoice 10:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Straw poll on watermelon caricature image
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

 * 1) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Billy P 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (See Comments)
 * 3) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I now think it should stay mainly because it provides evidence that this type of racism really was as prevalent as the article says. 21:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC) signature?
 * 5) This image should be maintained in the watermelon article but should ALSO be in Racism in the United States.  Encyclopedia's don't do well under censorship.  And as an American of partial African ancestry, I think that this is necessary to include. Elefuntboy 02:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)  I like user:deeceevoice's newest option below, but the text on racism MUST BE MAINTAINED on the watermelon page as well.  I'm okay with the image being shifted to another article on racist imagery.  Otherwise we're just doing revisionism for the sake of offending our sensibilities; avoiding discussing racism to feel better is a foolish decision. Elefuntboy 17:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the watermelon caricature image should not be included

 * 1) No!!! See my comments above and below. deeceevoice 15:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) No. I think it might be useful for an article on racism (i haven't looked to see what's on wikipedia) particularly images. but the pic isn't so much about watermelon. it's like having one of those nazi caricatures of jews to illustrate the article on the nose. Gzuckier 15:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No. As an addition to watermelon the picture is unnecessary, though the note about the use of watermelon as a racist symbol should be kept.  The image would be good for an article on racism in the United States. See comments.  WormRunner | Talk 17:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No. The point is perfectly clear without the image.  An image should add information or context to an article.  The picture tells us nothing new about watermelon, black people, or racism. Superm401 | Talk 21:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC) .  I've changed my mind based on the comments below. Superm401 | Talk 21:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Belongs in the Racism in the United States article in an expanded section on stereotypes near the racist postcard currently in the story. Someone needs to research it properly if more text is to be added to the racism article, citing sources properly. Putting the text or the image in an article on watermelon is inappropriate, unencyclopedic, in bad taste, and the image in particular teaches racism by vividly instilling the connection in people's minds when other encyclopedias do not teach watermelon = postcard of black person eating one.  &mdash; Bebop 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) No. This isn't an image about watermelon. It's an image depicting racism. I agree with Deeceevoice who wrote: "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." SlimVirgin (talk)  01:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Can I still vote? It should come out. It has little to do with watermelons and belongs in black stereotypes or something. --Tysto 03:14, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

The image and associated text should be moved to another article

 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Seconded. (Or actually, firsted, but thanks for giving the idea the proper place as a "Third Way" vote).Billy P 17:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) The image should move to a racism article, with some text included. A brief textual reference belongs in this article too only if we are going to keep a section on "symbolism" in the story, as currently done. The text used should be written more carefuly. More research and citing needs to be done throughout article. &mdash; Bebop 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree -- that the text and the pic should be moved and placed, where appropriate, to an article dealing with racism or, preferably racist iconography. If one doesn't exist, it should.  The article on blackface which I referred to earlier treats the racist iconography which sprang from the minstrel tradition.  There should be an article dealing with racist iconography and various ethnic groups.  deeceevoice 19:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)  See option below. deeceevoice 14:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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.
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&mdash; or those who are trying to press a point&mdash; 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)


 * 1) Agreed. deeceevoice 14:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I like user:deeceevoice's newest option, but the text on racism MUST BE MAINTAINED on the watermelon page as well. I'm okay with the image being shifted to another article on racist imagery.  Otherwise we're just doing revisionism for the sake of offending our sensibilities; avoiding discussing racism to feel better is a foolish decision. However, deeceevoice is missing the point as well; black racial stereotypes are different than others in the United States, and are more prevalent; they need to and should be discussed in such a fashion. Elefuntboy 17:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reconsideration of this matter, Elefuntboy (curious tag). But I don't think I'm missing the point.  I do feel racism should be discussed, but in context.  I simply think a link in the "Related topics" section -- something like: "Racism (See 'Racist iconography')" would suffice.  I'm happy that you think the image should not be included here.  Peace 2 u. :)  deeceevoice 22:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, frankly I'm shocked and disappointed that using this image outside of the racism context could have ever been considered acceptable by anyone in the first place. -JCarriker 18:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support moving image out and use in racism article. Some sort of text reference needs to be included in the "symbolism" part of the watermelon article unless we remove that section, however. &mdash; Bebop 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Concur with deceevoice. (I just wandered in here after seeing a notice on the IfD talk page, and thought I'd throw my 2c in.) android  79  00:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * 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)


 * This is a strawman, and a slippery slope argument. There were not ubiquitous references in American culture to Chinese people being inferior because they eat rice. There was not an overwhelming proportion of White Americans snickering about Greeks when someone mentioned the word "goat". And many Americans nowadays have no idea that watermelons were so associated with racism against blacks. They were, as the text mentions, and that's why an image is, in my opinion, appropriate. You may disagree, but that's no reason to ridicule the idea. By the way, there is an article on racism, and it has plenty of pictures, including some demonstrating the appaling racial stereotypes many people have had through the ages. I strongly don't think those images should be censored there, and I personally don't think they should be censored here either. In similar fashion, the article on interracial couples contains an image of a stereotype that people used to have about interracial couples: that the white person must be desperate and indiscriminate, and that the black person would be wholly repellant otherwise. It's a nasty stereotype, but it is what people used to believe (and what many still believe), so it belongs in the article to show historical context. Similarly, in this article, if the text is going to say that watermelons were associate with racial stereotypes, then I can't think of a good reason not to illustrate this fact. You've said yourself that you're not hypersensitive about this. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't vote for other people, even if you think you know what their opinions are. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a "strawman." The issue is not the presumptive inferiority of blacks; it is the common association of a particular ethnic group with an item -- and then the subsequent inclusion in an article about the item of a racist, stereotypical visual representation of that group.  This can be done with any article on any subject, based on what is decided here.  And I'm perfectly willing to follow through with it.  And, no. I do not "think" I know what the previous contributor opines about the racist item's inclusion; he made his opinion quite clear when he removed the photo with a notion that he was "taking out the garbage."  deeceevoice 16:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If I understand your position correctly – and correct me if I'm wrong – your argument is that its appropriate to mention a racial stereotype in an article on watermelon, but it's inappropriate to show a picture depicting this stereotype. Why is the text appropriate and the image not? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Are YOU? :p deeceevoice 16:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that I agree with the earlier contributor -- that mention of the stereotype should be made where such things are particularly germane to the discussion at hand -- in an article on stereotypes or about racism. I do not believe that an article on, say, methamphetamine should be accompanied by some a caricature of dirty, hard-luck, white-trash, toothless white folks with wild, disheveled hair; that an article on chicken, again, should be accompanied by a caricature of a big, red-lipped; raggedy; retarded-looking "darky" with a pullet under his arm haulin' a** out of someone's backyard; or, that an article about dogs should include a caricature of a squinty-eyed Asian dragging someone's mooched pooch into the back door of "Lee's Restaurant."  Equal treatment.  Again, I'm all ready for it!


 * I don't think you answered the question - or if you did, I don't understand. Why do you think it's appropriate to have the text say that watermelons have been associated with racist stereotypes, but you think it's inappropriate to have an image show this? I'm really curious. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly I think, Deeceevoice and Quadell, that you two are talking past each other. I personally think that Watermellon MUST contain a mention of its previous associations by racists, in order to be a complete article, and I feel additionally that this MUST include the picture to be a complete section. I would not be opposed to this section existing somewhere in another article and this article simply having a link. That is the compromise I think we can offer Quadell.

Deeceevoice, I think you may be reading too much into the implications of including the picture. I'll address some of your examples: Having a picture of a Jewish person with a forked tail in an article on usury would be COMPLETELY appropriate (and if there isn't one there, we should add one) because the act of usury directly associated Jewish people with the Devil and was used as a justification for violence against those marked as Jewish throughout the Christian Middle Ages.

This is different from your other examples. Rice does not carry a specific stereotype against Asians. There is a stereotype that Asians eat rice (and they do, in fact, eat rice, along with many other groups of people). However, rice is not the vehicle of the stereotype you suggested, and therefore that picture would be inapporpriate in that article. Similarly, spaghetti and goat do not act as vehicles for stereotypes against Italians and Greeks. There are many stereotypes of many ethnic groups who are also associated with certain foods. However, the situation is unique when the food becomes a stereotype in and of itself.

To address watermellon again, then, the picture is apporpriate here because the very object of watermellon carried a stereotype against Black people in America. If you doubt this, please see Birth of a Nation and watch the scene where the Black Freedmen take over the state legislature. Your comment on chicken doesn't quite match up because it is not a chicken that carries the stereotype (the chickens were indeed for the White Folk). It is the act of stealing the chicken that matters. A racist picture would be appropriate in a Chicken Stealing article. To further elaborate, another picture of racist associations would be very much appropriate in an article on Tom tom drums because of the specific streotype they carried against Africans and Black people in Europe and America. I hope that helps.Billy P 18:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I oppose moving it to a new article like Racist connotations of watermelon in America is that the article would be exceedingly short. The text, and perhaps the image, should possibly go in the Racism in the United States article as well, but that's a debate for that page; it seems irrelevant to the question of whether it belongs here. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you miss the point. The suggestion is to move the text and the pic to the article dealing with racism -- not to do a separate article on watermelons and black folks.  And I happen to think that's a lovely idea.  deeceevoice 19:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I really do believe that the image should be in both watermelon and Racism articles. Watermelon caricatures have indeed figured prominently in previous generations and it is important to acknowledge this.  I think this image does it justice.  If not, I could always supply another equally outdated and steretypical one I found while doing research a few years back. Elefuntboy 02:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not even a photo, just a drawing. What next? A drawing on Hypothetical Links between Al Qaeda and Saddam showing an artist's conception of Saddam and bin Laden sitting together discussing 9/11? Gzuckier 01:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good grief! I voted to remove the picture, but given all the invective here, perhaps it really is important to include.  I did not vote to delete it because I felt it was offensive, but because it did not seem necessary.  But watermelon really did have racist connotations (and racism is still alive and well, though subdued for the moment).  I could think of better pictures, but there it is.  WormRunner | Talk 02:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, if anyone thinks a different image would be better, there are lots of potential replacements here. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I simply don't agree that including the image is "perpetuating the ugly stereotypes of the past". I think it's mentioning the ugly stereotypes of the past. We shouldn't perpetuate them, but, in my opinion, we have to describe them. That's what encyclopedias do.


 * No, Quadell, it's not what encyclopedias ordinarily do in articles about a fruit &mdash; 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? &mdash; Bebop 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the article does mention them in the text. I still haven't got an answer as to why the text is acceptable but the image is not. It seems to me that if racism is important enough to talk about, I don't see why anyone would object to its display, besides squeamishness. No one seems to be pressing for the text to be removed. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. &mdash; Bebop 18:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, Quadell. Actually, they are. Review choices three and four -- again. The suggestions there are to remove the image and the text. I think you should read suggestions three and four. And it's got nothing to do with "squeamishness." I'm not exactly known for being chary when it comes to frank discussions of race and racism anywhere, anytime -- and certainly not on Wikipedia. It is about doing so in an appropriate venue, in an appropriate context, where the issues can be discussed fully, completely and responsibly, and not presenting just a racist image with a blurb or two simply because one can. deeceevoice 17:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Random Comment on it, But Generally, Watermelon, and other foods used in Black Stereotypes, are generally those foods that are common and popular in the sourth, particularly the less affluent portions of the south. Most of those sort of food related stereotypes hold as true for my White southern ancestors, as they would for someone who had poor Black ancestors who lived in the South. I Suppose when a large Black population began to move out of the south, and carried the same eating habits with them, the stereotype stuck. But It would be unusual to see White southerner make a stereotype out of someone eating watermelon, weeing that around these parts, you would commonly see whites or blacks eating it. (posted by User:Wahooker)

You (Wahooker) must be relatively young. It's the only explanation I have for your seeming lack of awareness of the pervasiveness of blacks-and-watermelon iconography all across the U.S. -- and particularly in the South. The link existed certainly during post-bellum times and predated by several decades the mass exoduses of blacks from the South. deeceevoice 23:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also found Wahooker's comment to be interesting, as I have several pictures from the 1920s clearly illustrating black stereotypical artwork associating blackface and watermelons. Granted I came across these while doing an ethnic studies project a few years ago as an undergrad, but i thought it was a widespread understanding of the black/watermelon connection. Elefuntboy 06:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation of the votes so far
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:
 * 1) We take the image out of this article, but leave the text in.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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 &mdash; 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. &mdash; Bebop 21:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OKGzuckier 00:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sprite melon
I've seen what looks like yellow watermelon being sold as "sprite melon" is that a variation of watermenlon, a separate melon, or just dyed or something? &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Rmpfu89 (talk &bull; contribs) 01:10, 18 September 2005  (UTC)

Blacks eating watermelon
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))

I've got no problems with this information appearing on this page. I'd say it does belong here. I'm asking about the missing information - what is supposed to be derogatory about suggesting that some particular subculture is inordinately fond of watermelon, whether or not that assertion is true? I've never heard any suggestion that a depiction of Asians eating rice is derogatory, for instance. By contrast suggesting that Koreans eat dogs clearly is derogatory, even if were true, because many western people keep canine vermin as loved pets. So what's "wrong" with eating watermelon?

Well we don't know until we have seen the images/illustrations in doubt. But i guess some of us prefer not to see it each time they browse for "standard" items like watermelons. In south-east asia they definetively eat rats and dogs, and in russia they do not always refrain from horse meat. Guess it is not the thing to big-picture it on the horse page, but it is possible to include it somewhere (where it belongs...) degoratory is it to draw a racial image in MAD MAG style, means to picture shabby clothing, silly grinning, vermin, you get get the idea. It has nothing to do with watermelons, except the fact the illustration contains image of watermelon. It is very exchangeable. It would mutilate the article, if it contains a gallery of ten such illustrations, and not much else. If it is only about north american past treatment of blacks, it becomes an illustration of that thing, using watermelons for political purposes. Wikipedia should display scientific info at a neutral point of view. IMO is is possible to include degoratory illustrations into a sub-page Degoratory_Watermelon_imagery_usage (they insist to capitalize watermelon). This page name should be fine. It is possible to put the info about socialism&watermelons there as well. alex 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information appearing on the page but I think it should be listed for what it is. It can be used to make fun of others. I am a southern American. People make jokes of blacks liking: Grits, Grape drinks, Fried chicken, Watermelon etc. I can see how it would be useful on this page as long as it is listed as a type of discrimination. I believe it to be useful only if explained. As the first person asked why it was included and what it meant, I do suppose other people may stumble across this page only looking for such an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandra loves (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Nutrition/Uses Cleanup
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)


 * 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)