Talk:Mate (beverage)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject South America / Argentina / Bolivia / Brazil / Chile / Paraguay (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bolivia (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Brazil (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chile (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Paraguay (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Uruguay (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Uruguayan culture. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Syria (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Yerba"[edit]

Yerba means nothing more than herb, and should be translated here as such. Mate is popular in many south america countries, and each one will simply call it "mate herb" in its own language. There is no special meaning to the word "yerba" for it to be used here. Just call it herb. In many parts across the article you can also substitute "yerba" for "mate". - Someone - February 19, 2015

Well, "herb" is "yerba" in Spanish. But "yerba mate" is a specific plant. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate Sometimes, to abbreviate, yerba mate is just called yerba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.61.91.49 (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Spanish "mate"[edit]

In the past there was much discussion about "mate" vs. "maté". It has several times been settled in favor of "mate", since the other form in Spanish refers to killing. I am now curious about the meaning of "mate" in Spanish. The other day I was in a paint store where they had both English and Spanish labels on the various forms of paint. What we call "flat" in English was called "mate" in Spanish! This appeared several times in different forms, such as "semi-flat". Can a Spanish speaker enlighten us about the meaning of "mate" in "yerba mate"? Lou Sander (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try a translation website: https://translate.google.ca/#en/es/matte
Similarly, there are many homonyms in English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I love this kind of discussions on the Wordreference forums. --RoRo (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
All this is great, but it might just be easier to find a South American Spanish speaker who just knows the origin of yerba mate. So far, I grok "flat herb". Lou Sander (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You will be answered on that forum. --RoRo (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I bit the bullet and did all the work of joining. Part of the fun was that they deleted all of my detailed, well-thought-out post because new members aren't allowed to include links. Sigh! But I persisted and hopefully I'll get an answer. The forum DOES look pretty good. My post is HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not a spanish originated word, it is indigenous, and comes from the word "mati" in quéchua language. The "mate" without an accent is therefore closer to the pronounce of the original word, and "maté" is most likely just a local variation. In Brazil it is never called "maté". Though "mati" was meant to name the recipient, not the herb, that name stayed. -- Anon (same person as discussion above) - March 02 2015

The article (and Lou Sander's comment above) mentions the erroneous spelling intended for English speakers as "maté," which as discussed elsewhere would represent the Spanish word for "I killed." One could advance an argument that the English spelling should actually be, instead, "matë" with a diaresis over the e. Though uncommon now in English (save the New Yorker magazine!), a diaresis signals that a vowel is pronounced at its full value as opposed to being silent or being read as being part of a digraph or diphtong. "Matë" would solve the ambiguity of the word, once and for all. Kukisvoomchor 03:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the final "e" is pronounced like the "e" in "tech". That's how I've pronounced it ever since, and a few South Americans have commented on my good pronunciation. It would be a real advantage if a couple of South Americans could record the pronunciation of the word and post their recordings in the article. I can maybe find an Argentinian lady to do it. Lou Sander (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind to record it, but I have no idea how to post it. (I'm an Argentinian lady) 186.61.91.49 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If you could record it several times in MP3 or similar format, then email it to me, I could get it posted. You can email me through the link in the left column of my user page. See "Email this user" under "Tools". The Argentinian lady I had in mind is a caterer here in Pittsburgh. I lost contact with her. Lou Sander (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss complicated or controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries[edit]

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss complicated or controversial edits on the talk page, not in our edit summaries? In this edit a contributor reverted the substitution of two references. His edit summary was "Reverted 7 edits by @Claudemirh:: Feels like ref spam. The previous references were in English as well. Not an improvement at any rate. (TW)"

I am concerned that this reversion was made recklessly. I think the revertor should have voiced his concern here, on the talk page. In my experience the most common trigger for edit wars is when reverters confine their explanation for controversial or complicated edits to their edit summaries. These controversial and poorly explained edits provide a grave temptation for the other party to reply in kind, to revert the reverter with their own inadequate explanation in their edit summary. The result? Instant edit war.

One additional problem is that these edit summary "discussions" are almost impossible to read and understand later. They don't really make sense, for third parties, unless the reader steps through the revisions, one at a time, and reads both the edit summary, and the diff itself, to see what change was made. Trying to follow one of these "discussion", later, is extremely difficult. Forcing third parties to parse what actually happened, by looking at the diffs, is extremely inconsiderate. Because a reader has to look at the diffs, they can't find the entire discussion in one place. Even the two original edit-warriors can't always follow these "discussions", when they return to them at a later date.

And a second very serious problem with this technique is that neutral third parties shouldn't be expected to know that they can find the explanation for the chaos caused by the edit war in those edit summaries. Neutral third parties should be able to expect to find a civil, collegial explanation for controversial or complicated edits on the article's talk page.

One specific problem I have with the explanation in the edit summary "Reverted 7 edits by Claudemirh: Feels like ref spam. The previous references were in English as well. Not an improvement at any rate. (TW)" is that it fails to mention that the original ref were marked by {{deadlink}} tags. Replacing a deadlinked reference with references that are not deadlinks is a reasonable thing to do. That the deadlinked reference may have been in English, while the new one isn't, isn't really an advantage when it deadlinked.

Another problem I have with this explanation is that it is unnecessarily confrontational. I don't know and I don't care whether the reverter has a history with the contributor they reverted, the phrase "Feels like ref spam" is unnecessarily accusatory.

FWIW, I spent a few minutes looking for references, in English, that explained in English what the Portugese term preparador means. I learned that "preparador" seems to be the Portugese synonym for the English word "preparer" (See page 202 of [1] which refers to a lab assistant as a "preparador de material")

Given a choice, between a reference, in English, that requires registration, and a reference, in Portugese, that does not require registration to read, I think I would prefer the Portugese reference.

In retrospect I don't think our reverter should have reverted the other guy at all. I think they should have explained their concern here. If no one responded in a reasonable period of time, then go ahead and revert the other guy. If a discussion ensues as to which reference is best, well, participate, but without leveling unnecessary accusations, like "ref spam".

FWIW I looked for wikidocuments that defined "ref spam", and didn't find any. Geo Swan (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleteing WP:REFSPAM is neither complicated or controversial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. WP:REFSPAM. After reading that paragraph I am mystified as to why you thought it was OK to level the accusation that the newbie's edits "looked like ref spam".
Spam is the same thing, over and over, all over the place. REFSPAM warns to watch for "the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor." So, the reference the newbie added to Mate (beverage) couldn't possibly be excised under the authority of REFSPAM unless they had added it to MULTIPLE ARTICLES. Since they only added it to one article, since the wikipedia only uses that reference in one article, if wasn't REFSPAM.
You are correct, your reversion wasn't complicated. But it was controversial. You didn't mention the key piece of information that the person you reverted had replaced a {{deadlink}}ed reference with one that was not {{deadlink}}ed.
Your edit summary asserted, as if it were too obvious to require explanation, that an English reference was automatically preferable to a non-English one. That is not obvious. Given that the reference you preferred is {{deadlink}}ed, I think your assertion is, well, debatable.
Did you plan to discuss which reference would be best used here? Or should we interpret the brevity of your reply as a tacit acknowledgment that you recognize that your reversion was overly hasty, and you have no objection to being reverted yourself?
No one wants to shame you, but it is best for the project if we can all explicitly acknowledge when we have changed our minds. Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Spam is not the same thing over and over. It's linking to a commercial site in order to promote said site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
So let's look at this one link at a time. The first phrase, "known in Portuguese as the preparador" was supported with http://chennifer.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/how-to-tomar-mate-the-newbies-guide. That was replaced with http://chimarrao.net. It did not support that term. However, the link prominently stated "Find out if Chimarrão Lose weight" at the bottom of the page. Are you kidding?
The next reference, http://www.matteleao.com/produtos/arquivos/Yerba%20mate%20Pharmacological%20Properties%20Research%20and%20Biotechnology.pdf supported "which involves smoke from the burning of wood, much like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in wood-smoked meat. Surprisingly, that same reference doesn't have any medical statements, and specifically nothing to support that sentence.
The final reference, also replaced with chimarro.net, was http://yerbamate.com/drying-methods and it was used to support "'Unsmoked' or steamed varieties of yerba mate tea are available". Would it surprise you if that claim was not supported?
My reverts were neither complicated nor controversial. Also, the only real issue of concern here is how Geo Swan suddenly became interested in this subject. I believe that can be explained by my interaction with it. I chastised the user and I believe that the user is now following my edits. I cannot prove it and I won't take the time to do so either. I do stand by my revert though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever happened in the past, let us please discuss major/complicated/potentially controversial edits here before we make them. I intend to do that, and I hope that others will do it as well. It is the courteous thing to do. Lou Sander (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)