Talk:Wariʼ

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dallas831.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Is that warning at the top really needed? — mark ✎ 10:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it would be a useful touch when I wrote the article. I don't mind seeing it go though, if people think there's no need for it. But it also doesn't hurt the article, I believe, to have it there. Regards, Redux 11:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about it either, but it does sound a little paternalistic to me. — mark ✎ 12:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I had never thought of it like that. I don't quite agree, but I do agree that the message wasn't all that necessary after all, so I've removed it. Regards, Redux 02:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

cleanup template inserted

I looked through all the cleanup templates but there are multiple issues here. No one template covers them all.

• Grammar: I fixed some things but there are still sentences that read oddly, that will require a little more work to make smooth. Examples:
  • "shifting between the woman's parents' and the man's parents' (those are nuclear houses)"
  • "the Wari' were present in the Amazon's Southeast, namely"
  • "and they rather the white (to whom they refer to as "civilized people", arguably because that is what white people called themselves when they first made contact) observe it as well."
• Tone: Some parts sound like a TV documentary or a persuasive essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. Examples:
  • "Nowadays the Wari' are a peaceful people"
  • "unlikely to be merciful or gracious"
  • "allowing the strength of the enemy to pass on to their children in the future"
  • "Cultural or ethnic identities are not things one is born to, but rather constructed during a lifetime"
• Too many details: random details are inserted for no apparent reason--relevance to the topic is unclear. However, I hesitate to remove them since I am not an expert on the topic, so maybe I just don't know why they are relevant. Example:
  • "were first seen by European settlers at the shores of the river Pakaa Nova, which is a right-bank-tributary of the Mamoré River." (why do we need to know it's a tributary of this other river, never mind that it is a right-bank tributary?)
• Not enough details: other places are vague when the information seems crucial. Examples:
  • The section on the marriage practice is unclear. "Every subgroup is organized around a set of brothers, each of whom is often married to a group of sisters." Either there is one brother married to multiple sisters (which is implied by "polygyny"), or, each brother is married to one woman who is a sister to the wife of his brother. The confusion is deepened with references to "nuclear family" and "couples."
  • "Each subgroup is intimately connected to a territory, which consists of a set of areas, all identified by name, each inhabited by a 'local group'." Huh??
  • What is the "pacification"? This seems important and is referred to twice, but not explained.
    • What happened?
    • Who caused it to happen? Why? What were the instigating events?
      • Were they violently subdued? If so by whom?
      • Or did they reach a voluntary peace agreement? If so with whom?
    • What was their response to these events?
      • Were they considered positive, negative, or... ?
      • If "pacification" was something done to them by the government or by outsiders, did they resist it? How? Or did they just go along with it? Why?
  • Along the same lines, it's not clear whether they had to move during the pacification, or whether "the headwaters of the Mamoré River" is the same place as "five different Reservations within the state of Rondônia." Needs to be clearer to people unfamiliar with Brazilian geography.
• POV Example:
  • "The Wari' experience what could be defined as a "multiple identity", since different people classify any given individual differently." Is this accurate? "Multiple identity" would seem to imply that there are several fixed identities and that people have more than one, or shift between them. But the description here sounds like there is not really a fixed identity at all--like they just don't think in terms of ethnicity or don't define their identity that way.

All these things need to be cleaned up and then the whole thing needs REFERENCES AND CITATIONS! This is an intriguing article and whoever wrote it got us off to a good start. But, we need to go further. --Vcrs 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article is inspired in (but not copied from) The Encyclopedia of the Indigenous Peoples in Brazil. Several instances, such as the "multiple identity" reference, are explanations as to how this people experiences life in society, and thus not really POV. I suppose we can work to lapidate the text further, although, as I see it, it already has an encyclopedic tone to it.
To answer your questions: 1) When studying the Amazon Basin, it is a standard procedure for geographic accuracy to identify the tributaries of the Amazon river, including whether they are left-bank-tributaries or right-bank-tributaries (this was once a paranoia: schoolchildren in Brazil used to have to memorize the names of the tributaries of the Amazon river, and know in which side of it they were); 2) The "pacification" is a broad term used in reference to the gradual acceptance by the indigenous peoples of the Amazon of the presence of the "western civilization" (or "the white man", as more commonly referred). It meant the end of tribal wars between them and the end of the [eventual, but existent] hostilities toward the outsiders, as well as the acceptance of government presence (in Brazil, meaning the acceptance of the tutelage of FUNAI, a government agency aimed at assisting and integrating the indigenous peoples of the country). For the most part, it went somewhat smoothly, in other cases, the road to pacification was bumpier. It wasn't a linear process that was equal for all. Regards, Redux 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Redux, I understand your explanation, but I still think it needs editing to be more similar to other articles.

• Regarding POV, it sounds like the whole "multiple identity" statement is basically saying, "they don't see things like I see things." It's taking an outsider's way of thinking ("ethnic groups" and "identities"), trying to apply it, then concluding it doesn't apply. In other words it's not really information, it's somebody (presumably the author of the encyclopedia article you reference) being surprised that other people are different from them. So it's a specific POV, not a description that makes sense of how the Wari' see themselves on their own terms.
• Regarding the left-bank and right-bank tributaries etc., this point came up in two places.
  • First, these geographic descriptions are totally appropriate under "Population and location," but they are not important enough to be included in the first paragraph. (In fact, I'm going to go take that out right now. It appears later anyway.)
  • Second, there is a description of where they used to live (near the headwaters of the Mamoré River), and where they now live (in the state of Rondônia), but it is unclear if those are the same place, or halfway across the country.
• Regarding the "pacification," is there an article about that that you could link to? You mention that it wasn't the same process for all groups; do you have any specific information about how it went for the Wari'? It's fine if you don't, but that's something that really should be in the article--an explanation of what happened during that process, specifically for the Wari'.
• It would be better with more sources.

I hope my tone doesn't sound sharp or unappreciative of your work in putting this information here. I just came across it while doing some other research, and thought it would benefit from the attention of a copyeditor and an expert on the topic, sooner or later!

all the best, Vcrs 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

endocannibalism

I must add that I do believe that an important part of the Wari' culture has been skipped over, and that is their past practice of endocannibalism. If I can assume that the Wari' in this article are the same as who I have come to research, they also practiced eating their own once they were dead. This type of cannibalism was treated in a completely different way as when they practiced exocannibalism, and was seen as an act of respect and a way for others to help cope with the situation. A piece about this needs to be said along with their other practice of cannibalism, to help educate others and show a different side to what is precieved as taboo cannibalism. Check Beth A. Conklin's book Consuming Grief (among other books). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.220.10 (talk • contribs)

neo brazillian

this is such a strange term to use. What does it even mean? Goldscurvy (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)