Talk:Mate (drink)

Requested move 13 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Red Slash 20:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Maté (drink) → Mate (drink) – The pages for "yerba mate", and also the page for mate the drink in the simple english wikipedia both preserve the _correct_ spelling of "mate". A lengthy discussion has already taken place over on the yerba mate page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yerba_mate/Archive_1#Page_move_from_Yerba_mate_to_Yerba_mat.C3.A9.3F.3F.3F) about why the article title should use this spelling, so I suggest this be moved _back_ to "Mate (drink)" to bring it into conformance with pages that have already had this discussion. Sgtpepper43 (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I could not agree more. The accent is a hypercorrection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question: But what spelling is the most common spelling when used in English-language sources? Whatever that is is what we should be using as the title of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. The accent does serve a function there, it's not a hypercorrection but an indicator to the reader that it's not pronounced /meɪt/. Kwamikagami points out that most dictionaries include the accent in the above section. Here are the results I got from a few pages of Google Books and a few newspapers:

Newspapers:

• mate: NYTimes [1][2][3], ABC News, BBC [4]
• mate (italicized or in quotation marks): NYTimes [5], BBC [6][7][8]
• maté: NYTimes [9][10][11][12]

Tourist books and cook books:

• mate (italicized or in quotation marks): [13][14][15][16][17]
• maté (italicized or in quotation marks): [18]
• maté: [19]

General books:

• mate (italicized): [20][21]

So it seems that both are commonly used, with the accentless version being more common. However, since both are in use and neither is wrong, there may not be sufficient reason to switch. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Country of origin

This page seems to contradict itself regarding the country of origin of mate. It clearly states in the first sentence of its "History" section that "Mate was first consumed by the indigenous Guaraní and also spread by the Tupí people who lived in that part of southern Brazil and northeast Argentina, including some areas that were Paraguayan territory before the Paraguayan War," yet in the infobox at the top of the page it list Paraguay as its sole country of origin, as if that even made sense with a drink by the Guaraní and the Tupí people in Pre-Columbian times. It seems obvious that the countries of origin are Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, not by any means exclusively Paraguay.

Perhaps the confusion resulting in this oversight originates from the fact that, as the article states, "the scientific name of the yerba-mate is Ilex paraguariensis," which, again, has nothing to do with the Guaraní and the Tupí, but rather with the European "discovery" of it and its taxonomical classification. Likewise, as the Wikipedia article on the "History of yerba mate" shows in a "Map showing natural distribution area of yerba mate" it includes Brazil and Argentina. Oulipal (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I definitely agree with all your remarks and observations above. Just a small note: The problem stems, in my view, from the larger problems that the "Infobox" feature always carries with it in the Wikipedia platform. I.e., in trying to summarize the information of the text, the Infobox can always turn into a dangerous "reductionist" feature for the encyclopedia, where real information can be reduced to incomplete and misleading information, as in this case. The feature has to be always used with the utmost care, in my view. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 17:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it be changed to the area of the Guaraní people and remove all modern nation states? I would be in favour of that change as well. However, if we are going to list one nation state, it is my understanding that the area of the Guaraní people is primarily what is modern-day Paraguay with only small extents into Brazil and Argentina. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support giving the origin or original usage to the indigenous Guaraní people, with maybe the modern nation state in parenthesis, or some form of that due recognition. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So the change would be

• from | origin = Paraguay

1. to | origin = The territory of the Guaraní people (present-day Paraguay between the Uruguay River and lower Paraguay River, the Misiones Province of Argentina, southern Brazil once as far north as Rio de Janeiro, and parts of Uruguay and Bolivia) which is taken from the article,
2. or the more simple | origin = The territory of the Guaraní people (present-day Paraguay, the Misiones province of Argentina, southern Brazil and Uruguay) as I do not believe the genus grew in Bolivia.
3. or the most simple | origin = The territory of the Guaraní people (present-day Paraguay, northern Argentina, southern Brazil and Uruguay)

One of the three options or something different? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I would probably choose Option 2, but any one of the three is really good enough for me. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 18:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No further comment. Adding a slight variant of 2. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the sources for the country of origin?

In the infobox the country of origin is given as "The territory of the Guaraní people (present-day Paraguay, the Misiones province of Argentina, southern Brazil and Uruguay)" but I find no source for that in the article. As fas I know the plant does not grow naturally in Uruguay and the article History of yerba mate states, with sources, that "Remnants of yerba mate have also been found in a Quechua tomb near Lima, Peru and has therefore been suggested to have been associated with prestige." Therefore cultural orogin is not fully evident, in particular for Uruguay, and the citation should be included. There is apparently more of a "country of origin" in Peru than Uruguay, but all this needs reliable sources. Dentren | ^Talk 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The point is not that the content in the infobox should be sourced, it's that it should be sourced somewhere in the body. You can see that this is the case in the first section of the history section. The issue is that this set of sentences needs to be referenced there as well. No need to stable the article with the tags. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz

1) The corresponding text does not exist in the body.

2) There is so far as I am concerned no wikipolicy against tags in the infobox.

As far I explained above there truth content of the statement about cultural origin in the iunfobox is dubious. Dentren | ^Talk 12:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a consensus edit. See above. The text is implied in the body.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes makes it clear that they summarize key features of the page's subject. The general practice is that the infobox should not contain tags if they can be applied to the body. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Peru is not listed, because that was not traditional territory of the Guaraní and Tupí, and the drink originated with them. That's the point.

As for why Uruguay is listed, because it is part of the traditional territory of the Guaraní.

You're not clear on how WP:CONSENSUS works either. if you want to change the infobox, seek a new consensus. The content is now well sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And to be a bit more clear, the sourced text is that Mate was first consumed by the Guaraní who lived in two regions in the territory that is now Paraguay. Do you agree with this? It is sourced twice, but I'm sure more sources could be found if you have a problem with either.

The traditional range of the Guaraní constitutes present-day Paraguay, the Misiones province of Argentina, southern Brazil and Uruguay. That is clearly sourced in the article on the Guaraní people. Do you agree with this?

Do you disagree with the combined statement in the infobox? It was reached at by a discussion. Would you like to open that discussion again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mate_(drink)&diff=1014259053&oldid=1014257767 is still a problem and will be reverted if an explanation is not forthcoming. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I see the confusion here. Ganson, Barbara (ed.). "The Guaraní and Their Legacy". Oxford Bibliographies. Retrieved March 25, 2021. I much more clear on the original provenance of the Guaraní. I separated their location from the Tupi, as they played a much smaller part in the story. I think we have the details straight now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide the quote on where it says Uruguay is country of origin for mate, or where says Prehispanic Guraraní drank mate in Uruguay? The fact that there were some peripheral Guaraní tribes in Uruguay does not imply the territories of the modern country of Uruguay is country of orogin of the drink. Doing so is WP:OR. Dentren | ^Talk 12:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No, because you're misreading the infobox. There is no "country of origin", but that is what the infobox allows. Mate originated with the Guaraní people. @Oulipal:, @Warshy: and I discussed this above. It started with a people group, not in a place. That is what we attempted to indicate with the infobox. Modern nations are not germane to the discussion but are provided to meet the sensibilities of the infobox's parameters.

Looking at {{Infobox drink}} there is the option of adding origin_label - Use this to change "Country of origin" to something else when "country" doesn't apply. This might be an option, and we simply add origin_label = Origin to the infobox and remove the modern nation-states.

If that is not agreeable to you, what wording would you suggest for either the existing parameter for the infobox in general? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. That offer is off the table. Thanks to your tagging, I found Preedy, Victor R. (2013). Tea in Health and Disease Prevention. Academic Press. pp. 165–6. ISBN 9780123849373. The Indians known as the Guarani began drinking yerba mate in the region that now includes Paraguay, southern Brazil, southeastern Bolivia, Northeastern Argentina and Uruguay. No need to change anything now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dentren: Could you stop focusing on the wrong things in the article, it's becoming tedious. The statement is "Mate was first consumed by the indigenous Guaraní". That is what is not what was sourced before your most recent tag though. The sources are that were there were for the fact that the Guaraní live in what is today called Uruguay (among other locations in the area). I have now added yet another reference already supplied in the article. May I suggest that you stop tagging the article and start discussing here instead? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Early written reports mention mate as being consumed in Paraguay. So far as I am concerned there is no archaelogical or historical backing for the thesis that the Guaraní of Uruguay were drinking mate, a drink made of leaves harvested from wild stands that does not grow naturally in Uruguay. All of this makes the mention of Uruguay in "country of origin" misleading. Walter Görlitz provided a source in the section "Legendary origins":

Preedy, Victor R. (2013). Tea in Health and Disease Prevention. Academic Press. pp. 165–6. ISBN 9780123849373. "The Indians known as the Guarani began drinking yerba mate in the region that now includes Paraguay, southern Brazil, southeastern Bolivia, Northeastern Argentina and Uruguay."

This is not the best source as it gives no rationale for the claims, and seem to reflect a common view, that is very general and lack details. The citation, apart from being located in the wrong place of the article to substance the Uruguay claims, would —if accepted despite its shortcommings— imply Bolivia is alsoto be mentioned among the countries of origin. For the sake of consistency the citation needs to be moved or copied to a place where it is referencing the non-legendary origins and will necessary lead to the inclusion of Bolivia.

It is not the best source but it is the only one I have seen far. Other sources conflate the distribution of Guaraní peoples with the origin region of mate.Dentren | ^Talk 12:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I saw this [22] edit now. It is a step in the right direction. Other sources not substancing the claim can be moved elsewhere or deleted as this is the only that for sure seem to address the issue more directly. Dentren | ^Talk 12:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're rejecting the point that it originated with a people and are insisting on applying the post-colonization names to the location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Maté

Voice 171.76.81.22 (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)