Talk:Maté/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Altitude sickness

File:Coca tea1.jpg

Mate de coca

I saw something (I think it was on Discovery) that mate helps against altitude sickness and there were people working on isolating the active substance and making a mate pill. I googled a bit and found some sources.[1][2] [3][4] // Liftarn

That is not Yerba mate, but mate from coca leaves. Mariano(t/c) 11:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, time to start an article on Mate de coca then. // Liftarn

Flavor and meaning

Errr, is this section needed? It's is truly not encyclopedic, more like someone's invention completelly unknown to most. Mariano(t/c) 07:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Yerba maté

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Since the proposal has been open for over 7 months with no consensus for support, and with the proposal's discussion having stagnated, I declare the proposal has failed to gain consensus. Cordovao (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, but this article should be merged with the "yerba mate" article! - unsigned

Camellia sinensis and Tea are separate articles and with good reason, there is a difference with between the biological extant species and what people create with it. an infusion and a living thing are different. Mate has yerba mate in it but it is not yerba mate, whereas yerba mate may be used to make mate but is not mate in and of itself as mate required addition ingredients. The coffee plant and coffee are not the same thing, coffee the beverage may include thousands of other ingredients, such is mate.Myheartinchile (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd just put it wherever and add a title for the new topic idea. Also, this page originally came from the yerba maté article. The paraphernalia, ceremony and history of the drink certainly warrant (and space rather demands) its own article. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I shot the sheriff (pero no maté el mate)

Regarding mate vs maté, see Talk:Yerba mate User:Ejrrjs says What? 18:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Very funny! (mató mil) Mariano(t/c) 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Very funny, but yes, regarding maté (English) versus mate (Spanish), see Talk:Yerba maté. In short, Spanish (even bilingual Spanish) usage doesn't change the facts that the word is maté in English and that this is the English language wiki.

It also has the benefit of making the (beverage) tag on the title unnecessary. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please enlighten me how it is maté in English, when English does not have accents (diacritic marks) on vowels. If you say it does use them in imported words (e.g. résumé) then it follows it should not have it in mate. In Spanish, as you probably know, mate is a beverage, while maté is the first person past form of the verb matar (to kill) as humorously and properly used in the section's title. -- Alexf⁴² 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

English frequently used/s diacretic marks for loanwords. See the appropriate Wiki articles on the language/spelling/history/&c, if you're interested. In this instance, it has to do with pronunciation - for the English language dictionaries and encyclopedias who universally list maté this way, see the Talk:Yerba maté discussion. The Spanish spelling, pronunciation, and punning are simply irrelevant. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rsazevedo undid edits to the page, claiming

"Mate" not only is the spelling in Spanish and Portuguese, it is recognized by the appropriate English sources, such as Merriam-Webster

Spanish posters, please reread the discussion in the Yerba maté article. NO English source currently lists unaccented "mate" as the proper spelling. Merriam-Webster lists it as an occasionally-used alternate spelling... under the heading "maté." The English word is accented and Wikipedia should reflect that. Cf. WP:OR and the guidelines on using English spellings in the English Wikipedia. Maté is not a proper name, but an accepted, accented English word -LlywelynII (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there was no consensus on the matter before User:LlywelynII proceeded to make his changes. "Mate" is listed in sources such as Merriam-Webster, and therefore cannot be considered wrong. Llywelyn's changes, btw, that rendered the article quite strange, since the title spells it one way and the article another. It is worth noting that the user in question did not even wait for his requested move to be answered before doing the changes. I am reporting this, which I view as unacceptable behaviour. Rsazevedo ^msg 10:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rsazevedo continues to revert the page, despite the evidence presented at Talk:Yerba maté being entirely one-sided. In comments to my talk, he also appears not to know that maté is used to refer to the drink at all, although it does. It may be important to note here that the English pronunciation is not [mate] but something like [mɒtei] (MAH-tey). I do understand that Latin Americans feel very passionately about the drink, but that doesn't mean that their usage is predominant in the English-speaking world. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Cf. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:OR & WP:ENGLISH.

As for the title, the page is currently blocked from being moved to maté and a move has been requested. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I can't even figure out how to use WP:Abuse to comment, although as far as I can understand the procedure, I wouldn't qualify and Rsaz won't until his next revert. In any case, I made the changes and then attempted to move the page only to find I couldn't. I didn't make the request in bad faith, and the changes I have made re:Maté and Yerba maté seem to be backed up by wiki policies.

We really shouldn't be in the business of changing the English language, just reflecting its actual use. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being Latin American; most of us know in this discussion know perfectly well English, so there's no need for such talk. It has also nothing to do with the way mate is pronounced, since the accent is merely an indication that the English word came via the French language; it's not, in any way, related to its pronunciation. The spelling mate is accepted by sources as important and relevant as Merriam-Webster. Period. The rest is merely your opinion. The version of the person who first created the article should have been respected. You seem to be new to Wikipedia, it would be wise to read the appropriate rules regarding behaviour among users since you've violated so many rules in such a small amount of time. First of all, you should have waited for an administrative decision concerning your requested move; then you should've discussed the subject further here, before embarking on a word-changing spree. Rsazevedo ^msg 10:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not an insult. It's an observation. Naturally, speakers in Uruguay use their native language's pronunciation of maté. It's just not the standard English one is the problem, as has been thoroughly documented. Your continued fall-back to MW is entirely disingenous, should be noted as such by any investigation, and the one ignoring English wiki policy here is you. I've documented the ones I've been following. That said, I really didn't come here to get into a fistfight. It's just every English language authority lists the accented word as its proper usage and I tried to correct the article. As a non-native speaker in a non-English-speaking country, you really should be humble enough to accept that our usage is different from your own, however strange that might be. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And that said, the edit at the moment looks fine. English pronunciation and spelling noted, English spelling retained in the article, and involves less page edits elsewhere. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Our" usage? Spare me this nonsense, you are dangerously bordering on xenophobia and prejudice. Do not speculate on other users' personal lives and/or skills and capabilities. Back to the issue, Merriam-Webster lists the spelling, therefore it is not wrong. On such conflicts, you should always choose to wait for another opinion, and not try to impose your (so far you're the only one defending your actions) view such heavy-handedly (and with such offensive "arguments"). Rsazevedo ^msg 10:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could edit it out to be less offensive if you like, but, yeah, I'd say the unanimity of native English authorities (again, including MW) would warrant that. I'm not being xenophobic at all, but noting that British, American, etc. usage obviously differs from local Anglophones in Latin America. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I could open a request for a third-party opinion, but the process seemed a tad too bureaucratic in a first glance; maybe other interested editors might want to comment on the subject. Rsazevedo ^msg 10:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have been reading your back and fourth arguing here, FYI I don't care about the "mate"/"maté" issue, what I care about is when non-native speakers impose their grammar and spelling onto another language. It does not matter what languages. Each language has grammar and spelling that is specific to it's self, It does not matter where the word came from originaly, but what is the current use. Wikipedia does not impose American English or British English, as long as it is correct English. But when people speak English (Or any language for that matter) as a second language, they tend to use their native grammar. Because a group of people in one area of the world use this grammar it might seem like it's correct, but it is not. On signs in touristy areas in Québec for example you might see "Close the light", and it is accepted localy as being correct because in French it is (in French) Fermer la lumière (literaly close the light), everyone knows what it means, but native English speakers would say "Turn off the light". Just because someone can speak a second language, and are understood, does not mean that they have mastered the language. So what I beleive that U:LlywelynII is trying to say is, and this is not xenophobic or racist or any ist that you want to try and add, that while in Spanish or Portugese or French spells it one way, the general English use is spelled a certain way, while also noting that other variations are acceptable. The English language is a combination language, it's roots are Germanic, but it also incorporates a lot of words and terminology from other languages, and then changes them to suit it's own purposes. Another problem with translating is what is called false friends when similar sounding words in different laguages have diferent meanings. And then we have "false-angliscisms" when an English word is used in a diferent language but not in the same way as in English. If you are going to contribute (And yes contribute because the more information out there the better) make sure that we are using correct English, and don't take a correction/clarification as an attack on you or your culture. The articles need to be clear and correct so that more of these language misunderstandings happen.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition

Have any studies been done on mate's nutritional or antioxidant content? I've been drinking it thinking it was just a type of green tea, oops. --Karuna8 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there have been some, but the actual studies are above my pay grade. Maybe a nutritionist or college student with database access could help us out. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Chimarrão

Should the chimarrão article be merged into this one? After all, they are different denominations for the same thing. Rsazevedo (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chimarrão and Mate (beverage) articles seem like a favorable combination. __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seems to me that since the actual ritual and practice of consumption is different, that I think they deserve their own articles deserve their own spot. However, they certainly should be linked. JMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.187.146 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, why not have a section of the Mate article dedicated to the ritual and practice of chimarrão? It makes no sense to have two different articles for the exact same beverage. Rsazevedo (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Tristanw (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends. If Chimarrão is only the Brazilian Portuguese for mate, sure. But if the Brazilian drink is commonly adulterated with other hollies [edit: since found that this is actually somewhat common throughout the region] and is processed from the raw yerba maté leaves in a different fashion, and prepared in a different ceremony, why shouldn't it get its own article? It'd be a different drink and different institution in a different culture. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a different drink, as anyone who know both local cultures (Argentinian and Brazilian) knows. Local variations may occur even within a country, but that does not a name change. Rsazevedo ^msg 10:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Then yes. Certainly the current chimarrão article barely describes any differences between Brazilian and Platinean consumption that would warrant distinction. The yerba maté article says that Brazilians tend to use green erva-mate instead of roasted leaves, but even that's unmentioned at the current chimarrão article. Is there really no difference at all, besides the term? -LlywelynII (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, being from the south of Brazil, I can say that Chimarrão is a really important tradition and it definitely deserves a page of its own. Mate, the herb, is drunk in a series of diferent conditions (in tereré, as common tea and also as the popular commercial ice tea "Matte Leão") and is definitely not a synonym for Chimarrão, even if we sometimes use the name of the herb to refer to Chimarrão (simply because mate is the main and sometimes only ingredient - added to water - used to make Chimarrão). Mate is a lot broader, with its other uses, and both words are not synonyms, as mate does not imply the specific ritual and the tradition that chimarrão represents. I do believe, however, that there should be a section dedicated to Chimarrão on the Mate page, as they are indeed closely linked by southern Brazilian culture. -Carolinolivia (talk) 00:39, 09 October 2008

I live in a small town near the argentinean border, next to Brasil (Rio Grande do Sul) . I drink Chimarrão, because I work in brasil, and mate every single day, and of course they are the same thing. The ritual is the same as described, the only diference is in the yerba or erva used in Argentina and in Brasil, but, from my point of view is the same thing. Considering Chimarrão a diferent infusion than mate it would be the same as considering colombian cofee a diferent infusion than brazilian cofee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.223.36 (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As it seemed to be the consensus here, I've merged the two pages. The versions of the articles before the merger can be seen here and here. Someone familiar with the subject should probably check the arcticle to make sure I included all the relevant information from both pages. Feel free to let me know if there was a problem with the merger or if you think the articles shouldn't have been merged. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Italicized Mate Gourd

Just to be clear, regardless of the status of maté/mate in the heading or article, the mate gourd should be italicized and unaccented throughout, as it's a Spanish technical term. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago I went through the article and made it maté throughout. I don't know much Spanish, but it seemed that things were very confused prior to my "editing," which at least made things uniform. I hope that somebody who knows what they are doing can review the whole article to 1) correct the spellings, and 2) explain to the rest of us what is proper in what usage. Lou Sander (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edition contained several mistakes, such as placing the English spelling maté in the Portuguese forms of the word ("Maté Leão"). Spanish spellings are not the same as Portuguese ones, you should have been more careful.

That being said, the responsible for the change was an anonymous IP, who altered everything back to the Spanish/Portuguese spelling mate claiming there was no consensus on the matter ([5]). I reverted back to before your edition, so the two of you can discuss what the better solution to the conflict would be. RafaAzevedo ^msg 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to remain on the sidelines. I have near-zero subject matter knowledge. I was just being bold in straightening out what seemed to be an incoherent mess. Surely somebody with knowledge of English, Spanish and Portuguese can fix the entire article. I hope they post some explanation, though. Lou Sander (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stepping out from the sidelines, I just emailed the president of the Yerba Mate Association of America. He offered no verifiable citation, but said that there is NO ACCENT IN ANY OF THE LANGUAGES (English, Spanish, Portuguese). Lou Sander (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No need for all that trouble, I'm Brazilian and I can attest that it is true, at least for Portuguese and Spanish (I have the appropriate sources, if needed). RafaAzevedo ^msg 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Rsaz was kind enough to include the proper English pronunciation on the page, but still in American phonetic style. [WP:Pronunciation] sez it should be in IPA and I think that correlates to [mɒtei], but because my IPA is pretty bad, I could use a second opinion. There are some alternate English pronunciations to include, too. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My IPA wouldn't be much help either. I found several instances of ['mate] scattered around the net, but that certainly does not sound like the standard English pronunciation of the word. Rsazevedo ^msg 12:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In IPA, ['mate] will be correct in a broad transcription, which is what Wiki policy recommends. Interlingua 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Health Effects of Sharing

Are there any adverse health effects due to sharing the bombilla? I would think the water temperature would be hot enough to take care of most bacteria, but it's not boiling, so I don't know. Fitzburgh (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there are actual studies wrt this, but this year at the office, due to the flu epidemic, the sharing of mate was heavily discouraged, and we've had less cases of flu than in previous years. It could be due to people generally being more concious about contaigon elsewhere, though. Simon.gall (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Is like talking about the health effect of sharing a sit in the subway. Of course if you are sick you shouldn't drink mate, but it's a social issue. the chances of getting sick are the same as give a kiss to your sick girlfriend.

In normal situations does not cause health problems. Otherwise people wouldn't have taken mate for over two centuries, did you think that people are stupid?

In Turkey?

Yes, in Turkey, there are people drinking whiskey too. So is this a common practice? I have never heard of mate in Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.48.227 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Parts of this article are identical with texts from http://www.yerbamateassociation.org. Compare, e.g., the introductory paragraphs with the text on [6]. This might have several reasons: the YMAA might have contributed their text, the YMAA has copied Wikipedia without acknowledging it, or both WP and YMAA copied from a common source that allows this re-use. However, it might also be that the WP article actually violates the copyrights of YMAA, in which case action needs to be taken. If this is not the case, it might be useful to leave a note on the talk page to clarify this. I guess there is a template/category for such cases but I don't have it now. --Markus Krötzsch 10:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown that a wikipedia editor violated copyright and took that text, it should be that there is nothing actionable about your remark. I was just about to comment on how funny this page is, as an article with no references, written like a memoir from the 1960s. It's very funny. Hopefully it's not plagiarised though.--Asdfg12345 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture?

I am wondering if the Simpsons (they make fun of just all and everything) have either shown or spoken of maté. However, I have seen a film called El Fuego Grande (Buenos Aires 1977), and of all the charachters, be it political prisoners, Police executives, interigations offeicers and so on, I can't recall anyone of them taking enough cocern as to make themselves a maté. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wonder away. Just please don't add any such dross to the article.Jimjamjak (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So you would not know I take it...? (82.134.28.194 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Health effects

There are several problems with this section as it stands. I would highlight the following points:

"In-vivo and in-vitro studies are showing that yerba mate exhibits significant cancer-fighting activity." If this is the case, then it should be easily referenced.

"In 1995, research at the University of Illinois found yerba mate to inhibit the proliferation of oral cancer cells." Once again, cite the (ideally peer-reviewed) evidence properly.

"On the other hand, there have been many studies on the association between mate-drinking and cancer in humans, and there is limited evidence connecting the drinking of hot mate and the development of esophageal cancer." There is no need to point out that there is contradictory evidence with the clunky "on the other hand" construction - evidence supporting apparently competing hypotheses is completely standard in the sciences. Also, cite the evidence if there is some.

"Some research has suggested that this effect is almost entirely a consequence of hot mate's temperature; similar links to cancer have been found for tea and other beverages generally consumed at high temperatures." Citation here would be good.

"Hot mate drinking is considered as "probably carcinogenic to humans" on the IARC Group 2A carcinogens list." Citation required.

"Mate itself is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.[6]" The distinction should be made here whether "mate" refers to the substance or its ingestion at high temperatures.

"There is some evidence that mate can cause lung[7] and bladder[8] cancer." Evidence properly cited here. Jimjamjak (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this stuff is very safe to drink, that the risks have been evaluated by several studies, and that the results of those studies only very weakly hint that there may be some risks, and that those risks are associated with drinking hot beverages, vs. drinking mate itself. However much of that should be in the article is an editorial judgment. Whatever IS included MUST be carefully referenced. "There is some evidence" is weasel wording, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, including the "some evidence" phrasing. Evidently, there is evidence to support very small increased risks through the consumption of very hot mate, just as with other liquids. Now I look at the sentence about lung and bladder cancer, I think should take the form: [type of study] studies have suggested that mate consumption may be associated with health outcomes x and y, but this should be specific. I'll try to review any epidemiologic/toxicologic studies that are included here when I get the chance. Jimjamjak (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't "got the chance" by the looks of it. If anyone has the time to review this section it would be worthwhile. It's still pretty sloppy at the moment.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle East?

I removed the references to consumption in the middle east a while ago. While economically, it's possible, there are no references to support it. Granted, there are no references to support it in central South America either, but that's common knowledge and there are sufficient images of usage and product images to support the claim there. Can we find a verifiable source and preferably a reliable source to back this claim before restoring the claim? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time looking for sources on mate. They are NOT easy to find. One problem is that we're writing an article in English on a subject that is little known outside the Spanish-speaking world. Another is that the subject is extremely commonplace in the places where it is important, so probably doesn't have much "authoritative" coverage, even in Spanish.

I do agree with your thinking on the Middle East claims, but I have a personal experience that makes me think they are correct (as opposed to verifiable). The first time I ever saw mate in a store, it was in a small Middle Eastern grocery. I wondered why a Uruguayan product was on Middle Eastern shelves. The proprietor, a Lebanese named Selim, said that many Middle Easterners had fled to South America during WWII. They acquired a liking for mate, and took it with them when they went back home. If we're going to put it in the encyclopedia, we should find a reference on it, though. The trouble is that they are SO hard to find. --Lou Sander (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Googling 'yerba mate lebanon' yielded this apparently authoritative article from 1995. Also very interesting, IMHO. --Lou Sander (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Second page indicates that Lebanon and UEA are importers of Argentinian yerba. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

External links

All of the external links seem to violate WP:ELNO particularly 11:

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Not sure how you define an expert in drinking Maté, but I don't know that personal blog entries qualify. So I think we need to capture as much of that information as they will have to go. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

These links seem OK to me. They have to do with simple matters not easily conveyed in the text. They don't seem to be unauthoritative, or misleading, or anything but accurate. We are talking here about a subject that is extremely common in many cultures, but mostly unknown in others. How, other than by looking at things such as these links lead to, can someone totally unfamiliar with mate see how it is made? I have some interest in mate, and have been frustrated by the difficulty of understanding how it is properly brewed and drunk. These links definitely help in that area. Even though they may be objectionable on technical grounds, provide (IMHO) a useful adjunct to the article. I think we should be bold and leave them in. --Lou Sander (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Article updates

Made some minor edits and added what I thought was pertinent info. Freakdog (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

SPELLING is WRONG

It should be maté. as per the wikipedia article discussion given here:

[7]

AND in any case yerba maté and maté should be spelled the same in wikipedia.

I disagree as per the article. --Torsin (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

After the significant discussion (linked to above), the decision was to make it mate, without the accent. Case closed. Lou Sander (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC

I agree it's misspelled and it should be maté not "mate" as "mate" is incorrect.96.227.207.172 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're agreeing with the wrong thing. It's not "maté", which is a case of hypercorrection. English doesn't even officially have diacritics. They are usually loaned from foreign languages (see my family name for instance). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Walter, you haven't provided much evidence of that statement. What does officially mean anyways? Our dictionaries are full of diacritics, including diacritics on this word, so if there is *any* authority of the english language, it's dictionaries. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Use the links Obi-Wan! Or read the information below (Requested Move: → Maté). I'm sorry that I assumed that editors read the whole page and not just what is listed in the immediate section. You should also feel free to read the message archives here and the talk and archives of the yerba mate article where this discussion has happened on multiple occasions and has been settled the same way.

In short, the loan word for the beverage is from the Spanish. Brazilian Portuguese uses a radically different word: chimarrão. In Spanish, the word is spelled without diacritics. In Spanish maté means "I killed". English itself has no diacritics. It is incorrect (but not unheard of) to add diacritics to foreign words. In this instance it not only changes the meaning for native speakers, it also changes the pronunciation completely since in Spanish it's a short "e" and the hypercorrection makes it an "ay" sound. While English may do what it wants with loan words, this is a clear case of hypercorrection. Feel free to read up on it Yerba mate#Nomenclature as well. One can only assume that it is to differentiate from the English word of the same spelling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did read the below discussion, and you may actually be right, that this is a hyper correction, and that in spanish it is incorrect, and that this suggests the wrong spelling, etc. But none of that matters. What matters is usage - and in several dictionaries, which are our best indications of words in the English language, it is listed as maté. And this statement is just silly: "English itself has no diacritics"; says who??? The diaresis, for example, is native to english, circumflex is sometimes used, and english has several loan words where accents are accepted. All of that is considered english. There is no governing board of the english language - all we have to go on is usage, and plenty of people work on their résumés at cafés. It's not considered incorrect to use the accent in those words.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has been and will continue to be that it's hypercorrection and we will not follow the error, particularly when the dictionaries list both spellings. Also, your examples are direct loans not hypercorrections. Also, if you want me to take your argument seriously, I would start by capitalizing English and Spanish. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not taught diacritics when we are taught the English alphabet, while we use them on occasion, they are not necessary and this is all discussed at diacritic#English. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a fair discussion and the argumentation is all right (nothing personal, just really trying to clarify matters), but I have to agree with Walter Görlitz all the way here. I think he is right on the mark on this whole thread from the beginning, and the hypercorrection issue (now relinked to "hyperforeignism") is already even explained in the name explanation section in this article. warshy^talk 17:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of which spelling right, the rationale given the article "since this creates confusion with an unrelated Spanish word for killing.[6] ("maté" literally means "I killed" in Spanish)" is very misleading. The reason for the exclusion of the accent mark obviously has nothing to do with a concern for the meaning in Spanish since "mate" without an accent means "kill" as a formal command. That phrase should either be removed from the article; or if its it's included simply for the sake of information, should also mention the alternate meaning of the word "mate" in Spanish.Viper5030 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mate is not the imperative for kill unless you're conjugating matar differently. It's the subjunctive. However, in Spanish that is already a common homonym and not misunderstood whereas maté is not and it may cause confusion.

The only reason it should be removed is if it's incorrect or cannot be referenced. Misleading is not a valid reason and your case that it is misleading has not been made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Article update: Regions where Mate can be found

Changed the sentences about the regions where Mate can be found. In the previous version readers might have gotten the impression that Syria is a Brazilian region. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.84.94 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: → Maté

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Mate (beverage) → Maté – When a subject is not primary topic for the term that it is most commonly called, WP:PRECISION instructs us to, "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English." Parenthetical disambiguation should be used only if this is "not possible." Random House Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Columbia, and Britannica, all give the name of this subject with the diacritic as their preferred variant. This diacritic is not from Spanish, but rather clarifies that the word is pronounced as two syllables, unlike "mate" with a silent e. It's same idea as café or résumé, where a diacritic is retained to show pronunciation. Kauffner (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Addendum. I just noticed that maté and mate are currently two separate DAB pages, which is quite irregular. If this proposal is approved, they will have to be merged at "mate". Not only that, but the pages should be merged regardless of what happens to this proposal. Kauffner (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. It's the wrong term. It has no diacritics in the original language. In the original language it means I killed. There is a great deal of discussion at Talk:Yerba mate/Archive 1 about this. Second, and not yet mentioned, the pronunciation is wrong. The final e is short and the accent makes it sound out as "ma-tay", which is also wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• In English, mäˌtā (ma tay) is the correct pronunciation, according to Oxford and American Heritage. If you google this word, the results are about people in English-speaking countries drinking this item on account of supposed health benefits. There is no reason to think that our readers are greatly concerned with this item's place in the culture of Argentina or Paraguay. The proposed spelling is quite common in published English material, especially if you compare it to most other diacritics that get put on Wiki titles. Published reference works don't use disambiguators, so removing them makes a title look more professional. Disambiguators often confuse readers as well, although that's not necessarily the case here. Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is it's the wrong pronunciation. If you go to the region and say you want to drink a mäˌtā you will get looks of puzzlement. And unlike your recent example, resume is correct spelling in English while résumé is correct in French. Your suggested spelling is I killed in the original and for some reason, some English lexicographers have decided to insert the diacritics incorrectly. If you are asking to go against consensus, please canvas all those who discussed this in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you say any English-language word to a non-English speaking person in Paraguay, you might get "looks of puzzlement." Words are spelled and pronounced differently in different languages, and so what? As for "résumé", the correct English-language spelling is "ré·su·mé or re·su·me", according to Merriam-Webster. Kauffner (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is not saying an English word to a Castilian-speaking population, it's speaking what is supposed to be an exonym to them. The correct spelling in English is not resume since English officially has no diacritics. Webster is incorrect on so many other fronts I wonder how the colonies manage to communicate with the rest of the English speaking world. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• support I actually came here with intent to make a similar nomination. The DAB argument is good, and while I agree with Gorlitz in that this may be viewed as incorrect, but the usage is frequent in English media in order to accent the last letter - the point (in english) is to distinguish it from the word mate, which obviously has a different meaning.--KarlB (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; I have serious concerns about using only a diacritic for disambiguation. Capital letters are one thing; accent marks another thing entirely, IMO. I think it would be too confusing, and needlessly complicate linking and searching. I would support Maté (beverage), if the accent proves to be used more often than not. Powers ^T 18:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: per Walter Görlitz Cambalachero (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• From the archives of the talk:Yerba mate article: Both the spellings "mate" and "maté" are used in English. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 2002, shows the main entry for the word as ma·té or ma·te. The explanatory material for main entries on page 14a, headed 1.71, says "When a main entry is followed by the word or and another spelling or form, the two spellings or forms are equal variants. Their order is usually alphabetical, and the first is no more to be preferred than the second..." The New Oxford American Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary The acute accent on the final letter is likely added as a hypercorrection, and serves to indicate that the word and its pronunciation are distinct from the common English word "mate". However, the Yerba Mate Association of the Americas states that it is always improper to accent the second syllable, since doing so confuses the word with an unrelated Spanish word for killing "FAQs: Pronunciation and Spelling". Yerba Mate Association of the Americas. Retrieved November 27, 2008. ("Maté" literally means "I killed" in Spanish).

• Comment: Kauffner, you were part of the discussion of the earlier move at Talk:Yerba mate/Archive 1, and you know how it turned out. If you have new evidence/rationale for why this spelling should now be accepted even though it wasn't before, you should bring that up explicitly. Otherwise I don't see any reason it would make sense to intentionally make the two articles have inconsistent spelling. - Afiler (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose (with details and a TL;DR at the end): This has been discussed in the past, and I don't see a reason to discuss it again. Still, if one must ask the same questions again, I shall do the same. I am going to, once again, ask everyone in favor of the change to explain why English should insert diacritics the English language itself doesn't even have in the first place on words from foreign languages. I'll subsequently (and sarcastically) request that we put diacritics on words such as anime, which, unlike how most English speakers would read it, is pronounced with emphasis on me (as in "amends", not as in "meaning", and much less as maid -- most English speakers would read it "ah-nee-may"), and is technically an English-derived word in the first place (the Japanese shortened it from the English animation, as they like so much to do, and changed its pronunciation in the process; English speakers eventually imported it back meaning Japanese (and sometimes also Chinese, Korean, etc) -style animation). Then, I'll mention en passant how both "animé" and "maté" are cases of hypercorrection, and as such incorrect. I'll also take the time to mention how emphasis in mate is on ma, and not on te as the diacritic would incorrectly suggest for a word coming from the West Iberian languages (and, as far as I recall, with its origin being traceable to the Tupi-Guarani peoples, but I digress). I'll finally sigh at all those people giving as examples French words that kept their diacritics, such as (the now quite ancient) née (female form for born) for the family name a married woman had when she was single, given those diacritics were already part of the word in the source language, and I'll also mention how the diacritics on résumé (for a CV; not to be confused with the opposite of "pause" :P) are also found in French but the most common English form actually removes them, and I'll seize the opportunity and state once again that that's not the case here. Conclusions (TL;DR STARTS HERE): There are way too many arguments against the change; I've listed a few of the strongest. They are more or less the reason why it was decided that the article wouldn't have accents in the past, when we already had one such discussion. I believe we can all play this rehash game, but the result isn't going to change, and I suspect all Wikipedia contributors (even those who do fairly little here such as myself) have something better to do. :) -- Vítor Cassol (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If I'm understanding the situation correctly, I feel like this is an argument to be had with the English language itself. It likes to steal words and mash them up and doesn't give a whit for making them consistent with other words, so sometimes mate is mate and sometimes it's mate. We aren't here to fix English, so just leave the word as what it is. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• comment While I agree with Vitor Sassol, in that this is indeed likely a case of hypercorrection, we have to follow how the sources use the word. Dictionaries seem to prefer the word with a diacritic; do we have evidence on how other sources use this? Regardless of how *wrong* it is, it's still correct because of broad use.--KarlB (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

comment As indicated above, dictionaries don't prefer the word with a diacritic, they simply include it as an option. Other evidence is given above in the paragraph that starts "From the archives of the". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vítor Cassol. "Mate" is the correct spelling, and (as Powers mentions) using only a diacritic -- especially an incorrect one -- for disambiguation isn't quite enough. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Incorrect" -- There's a bold claim. In the nomination, I gave a list of references that indicate that the proposed form is their first choice. The list would be even longer if I included dictionaries that give it as second choice. Britannica uses the form of the name with a diacritic exclusively. It's disambiguation not only in the sense of allowing the software to bring up the correct article, but also to help the reader differentiate "mate" from "maté" and to be aware of the difference in pronunciation. Kauffner (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • "Incorrect". If you click on the link in said Britannica article: "(Ilex paraguariensis)" It links to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/653014/yerba-mate which reads "The topic yerba mate is discussed in the following articles" and carries no diacritics. They do not use the term exclusively. This is a case of hypercorrection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Don't be ridiculous. Hypercorrections are incorrect to begin with. --Vítor Cassol (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Britannica`s article opens "maté, also called Yerba Maté, Paraguay Tea, or Brazilian Tea". So "mate" without a diacritic is not among their top four variants. Their style is to open by repeating the name in the title, so the example of "yerba mate" given above is likely to be a typo. Columbia gives, "maté (mätā', mătā'), yerba maté (yer'bä, –bu), or Paraguay tea". Kauffner (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
        • OK. Not quite sure why you indicated that. You did read what I wrote didn't you? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Instead of moving just added additional English spelling to lede, as the article already contains a special sections that also explains the alternative spellings of the word in English and possible reasons for them. warshy^talk 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have nothing against including the additional English spelling, but give some context. As you put it there, it sounds like it's a correct form. It should mention that is is "sometimes also spelled "maté" in English, although that is a case of hypercorrection". I would simply be bold and add it myself, but I want to avoid things that may lead to edit wars. --Vítor Cassol (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• oppose, and IMO it should be Yerba mate (beverage). (I know "yerba" is technically the plant, but yerba mate is the normal English name for the beverage too.) — kwami (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment No, it's not. --Vítor Cassol (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The loose tea is yerba or yerba mate. If the hot tea is called yerba mate, it's simply incorrect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. By "loose tea", do you mean the unprepared (dry) leaves? These are yerba mate (erva mate in Portuguese), often referred to simply as yerba (erva in Portuguese). The very idea of calling the beverage yerba mate is completely nonsensical, and laughable at best. --Vítor Cassol (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, the unprepared leaves. In terms that a tea drinker would understand: "loose tea". And yes, I would never ask to purchase "yerba mate" at the local Mennonite grocer, simply yerba. However, if I go to an upscale tea shop, I would ask for yerba mate, since that's what they would call it. And I agree, no one drinks "yerba mate". Time to make some tereré. Too hot for anything else. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Exports From Argentina

I deleted this. It was entirely unsourced, and read like an advert for a company, who's own Wikipedia page also reads like it was written by their PR company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.206.53 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

matero?

I just got (Redirected from Matero), but the article has no mention about "matero". I would be nice to know the reason for the redirect. And I can't think a reason what should not be mentioned in the actual article. 82.141.126.28 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history of that article, it was redirected in April 2007 because the article was nothing more than a dictionary definition. I moved that former definition, added a citation needed tag, and changed the location of the redirect to point more closely to the sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Mate in Chile

I'm from Chile and for a long time I only saw my grandparents (from the countryfield, center-south of Chile) drinking mate, but it's always been a -let me put it this way- latent drink. I mean with this that sometimes people go crazy over mate for a couple of years and then it goes back to normal. Up to 3 or 4 years ago Mate was included in the system for measuring inflation in food (now it's not), but currently many people are using it (and not just in the South of the country, there's been a rise in drinking in the North of the country) because it is like having an energy drink without the sugar, chemicals and, of course, the price. I didn't dare to change the article, but you might want to include Chile in the list of countries that drink mate, and not like it says on the article 'to a lesser extent'. Some of my friends -who are not really good at drinking tea, coffee or anything- don't drink mate, but the vast majority of them do. Regards. 21:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.163.192.4 (talk)

Most of the listed countries are supported in the article. Is there any support that it's commonly consumed there? Individual consumption is immaterial and would result in countries such as the United States and Canada being added to the list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mate / maté

I see you undid my change to the Mate (beverage) page, when I said that "maté" is only considered a correct spelling in English; you said, when undoing it, that it's also a valid spelling in other languages. Could you please confirm if that's really the case, and if so which languages you are referring to? I read a good part of the discussions about this spelling issue (in both that article's talk page and Yerba mate's) and couldn't find a reference to anything like that (granted, though, I didn't read fully through every single discussion). I was also further surprised by your change because in the above-mentioned discussions the contributions by you which I saw would indicate that, if anything, you'd be more willing to eliminate the "maté" spelling all together :)

Thanks! --Cotoco (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can.

• cs:Maté
• fr:Maté
• nn:Maté
• sk:Maté
• tr:Maté

And the slight variant: lt:Matė and I would still like to eliminate the incorrect spelling and keep the correct transliteration. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cotoco (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been drinking mate for a while now, and I have a problem with how exhaustive the process comes off as being. , whoever wrote all the BS preparation really went overboard to the point where somebody might think that it's a complicated process when in reality it is not at all. The whole preparation and brewing section could be replaced by, put some yerba in the gourd, pour hot (but not boiling water) drink with provided bombilla. All the BS about how to drink it in groups, it's just too detailed unnecessarily. I've shown the article to longtime native mate drinkers, and the ideas expressed in the article seem trivial even to them. I don't know how to correct the article to reflect that, as it is well written by somebody who obviously cares about the subject (a little too much). It's almost like as if an alien species took meticulous notes about how to do something very simple like making a tea. I bet this was written by an american sociology student looking to justify their trip to Argentina taking something simple and explaining the heck out of it to impress an american professor. It's harmless unless somebody comes to this page after buying some yerba and wondering how to prepare it, and being turned off. anyhow . . . I'll try to make an edit that reflects my point of view . . Paul

"Mate" is an English word, rhymes with "bait," means lots of things, none of them beverage. Hence, it is ambiguous and confusing every time the "mate" spelling is used without "yerba." The spelling "maté" causes no ambiguity problems in English (it might if used in the Spanish Wikipedia, but so what)? Here, in English, "mate" is ambiguous and leads to mispronunciation, and maté is unambiguous. The maté spelling prompts English speakers to pronounce the word in a manner similar to its correct pronunciation in Spanish. The word should therefore be spelled maté everywhere the full "yerba maté" phrase is not used, and especially in the article title. However if not that, then use the full name, yerba mate, every time. "Yerba mate" can be argued as a way to spell yerba maté, while "mate" by itself just spells the unrelated English word pronounced as "mait," making the article a jarring read to those who know the correct pronunciation, and creating a source of sad but comical pronunciation errors by readers who do not. Ocdnctx (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pipore call it Yerba Mate. I thought I was buying cheap coffee. If you are from the U.S. and thinking of trying this out it sort of is like...well you need to acquire a taste for this...Easeltine (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mate as an ice tea

The article barely mentions the fact that mate is widely consumed as an ice tea in Brazil, especially in Rio de Janeiro. It is sold by beach vendors and at various snack bars across the area, being a real icon of the city. Actually, many people have never tried "chimarrão" in the area. I added a paragraph to the text, with a reliable source. Jgsodre (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's because there's a different article on that subject: tereré. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of tereré before checking this article. It is probably similar to the ice tea concept we have in Southwestern Brazil, especially in Rio, but not exactly equivalent. For instance, the ice tea form I mentioned is the same as of any other ice tea...you make the tea, filter it, take it to the fridge and then serve it in a glass (if it's artisinal). The tereré article is interesting, but I think it's a more specific beverage or mate tradition. Anyway, I think the paragraph mentioning the beach culture is enough to give an idea of the variation I mentioned. Jgsodre (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Consumption in the middle east

• Luxner, Larry (November–December 1995). "Yerba Mate: The South American Leaf". Saudi Aramco World. Retrieved January 25, 2009. First paragraph: "Syrians, Lebanese and Arabs of the Gulf region". And later in the article, "Argentina's biggest customer for yerba mate last year was Syria, which bought 5.8 million kilograms of mate valued at around $7.4 million."
• "Yerba Mate: What? Where? How? When?". ushuaia.pl. Retrieved January 25, 2009. "Another important region of yerba mate drinking in the world is Middle East, mainly Syria and Lebanon. The habit of drinking yerba mate came to this region with emigrants returning from South America. Syria is world's biggest importer of yerba mate."

I'm not entirely sure why this should not be mentioned in the lede. Discussion should be had before it is removed again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Yerba"

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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

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 [8] 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)

Health effects

I have removed a fair amount of material sourced to non-WP:MEDRS sources from this section. Biomedical content must be reliably-sourced. The remaining content is sourced to better sources. Alexbrn (talk)
(Add) Oh, Walter Görlitz has put it back. Why? Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

You removed the following among others:

http://dx.doi.org.virtual.anu.edu.au/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.10.023

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mnfr.201100128/abstract

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf048158g

How exactly are they not RSes? I added them back because they are reliable as far as I can tell. They were added by DorkKnight (talk · contribs) in July 2014, who removed non-reliable sources and supplied these. You can explain to that editor why they're not RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

They are all primary sources, not reliable for health content per WP:MEDRS. That this article contains claims in a "Health effects" section like "yerba mate may have significant cancer-fighting activity" sourced to poor sources is a very bad thing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:PRIMARY sources are not ineligible, they simply have minimal WP:WEIGHT. So they do not fail your referenced guideline. To claim that they "not reliable for health content per WP:MEDRS" is a misrepresentation at best or an outright lie at worst. I'll assume good faith and ask you to read it again.

Wikipedia:DEADLINKs, which you claimed before deleting, should not be removed either, they should be marked so replacements can be found. See WP:KDL and {{Uw-deadlink}} for additional commentary on that.

However, those were merely examples from one section. You deleted, many more. Please keep going and explain each. I'm serious about this.

Also, I'm waiting for you to review DorkKnight's edits to explain why the editor was wrong and you're right. Good night. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

From WP:MEDRS:

Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content [bold in original]

There are some rare & exceptional circumstances where they are usable, but not here. I never claimed WP:DEADLINKs as a reason for deletion, I just said your link (here on Talk) didn't work. Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I also quoted the guideline directly: "they simply have minimal WP:WEIGHT" is how it continues. They are not excluded from use. Please stop misrepresenting the facts of the guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, in fact it says

Primary sources should generally not be used for health-related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable ... The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors ... [my bold]

As I said there are rare & exceptional circumstances where primary sources are usable, but not here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well in fact it's more than a few words long and the entire content of the guideline is not as cut-and-dry as you make it out.

Some of the statements being referenced were "In 2011, research at the University of Illinois found yerba mate to inhibit the proliferation of colon cancer cells", and so it's not a generic statement, the reference supports a specific statement and "adding to previous research at the University of Illinois in 2005 that found a similar effect for oral cancer cells" follows, with yet another example. And then there's the case of the three specific descriptions of cases in the possible cardioprotective effects section. Not making broad statements and clearly RSes for this case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite - unreliably sourced content for "Health effects". I shall raise a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

concur with Alexbrn--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As do I. I think we need to strengthen MEDRS so we aren't wasting so much time on "food x contains substance y which may have some health effects, but to date no research has shown that consuming food x has such effects, nor do we know what harm may be caused by consuming food x in quantities large enough to get the health effects mentioned." --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A few suggested sources if anyone has access (I can check if I do if no one else does): [9] and [10]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that we'll need to make sure that Yerba_mate#Health_effects properly summarizes (and links to) what is included in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Spanish "mate"

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)

Please note that human languages rarely work like you would want them to – elegantly, coherently and correctly (whatever the definition may be). People use words and expressions that some experts consider errors all the time. If, say, a million people think there is nothing wrong with maté, it doesn't make it automatically an error if a linguist says otherwise, let alone someone who does original research on Wikipedia. Hypercorrect is also a loaded word and implies an erroneous usage. There are certainly a wide variety of opinions. The only thing that we know for a fact is that there are two spellings. Kumiponi (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is one correct spelling, and one spelling to avoid confusion with the English word "mate" (see http://www.britannica.com/topic/mate-beverage). Hypercorrection is not a loaded word, it's an accurate description of the problem. It causes a mispronunciation of the word in English, but we do that all the time when words are taken from other languages. The problem is that the hypercorrected spelling did not arrive in English until the beverage began to be marketed to health-conscious individuals in the 1990s. Prior to that, it was always spelled without the hypercorrection and context informed the reader of the intended meaning and pronunciation. I have no empirical data to support this, only recognition via observation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation number 10 doesn't point anywere relevant if my basic understanding of japanese is to be trusted. 190.229.220.159 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Sorry I reverted earlier. I confused this artilce with the yerba mate article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"This article is about..."

I think it would be useful to add one of those "This article is about..." notes to this article, something like:

″This article is about the beverage, for the plant see: Yerba mate"

There's a link to it in the second paragraph. With a disambiguation in the title, I'm not sure why the hatnote would be needed. It is not likely to confuse English speakers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified February 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mate (beverage). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110126142842/http://yerbamate.com:80/drying-methods/ to http://yerbamate.com/drying-methods/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified March 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mate (beverage). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org:80/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714045552/http://www.matteleao.com/produtos/arquivos/Yerba%20mate%20Pharmacological%20Properties%20Research%20and%20Biotechnology.pdf to http://www.matteleao.com/produtos/arquivos/Yerba%20mate%20Pharmacological%20Properties%20Research%20and%20Biotechnology.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Portuguese terms and addition of incorrect terms edit war

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mate_%28beverage%29&diff=721855926&oldid=721855612

• gourd (mate in Spanish, cuia) and is incorrect. The correct term is guampa.
• straw (bombilla) removes (bomba/bombilla). Not sure why the Portuguese term was removed.
• Incorrect commenting out of "by saying "bring the talking gourd" (cuia de conversar); an Argentine equivalent, especially among young people, being no es un micrófono ("it's not a microphone"), an allusion to the drinkers holding the mate for too long, as if they were using it as a microphone to deliver a lecture"
• Similarly, addition of unsourced, but possibly correct terms.
• Addition of cebadores, twice, when the term has not been defined.

The editor has decided to keep his preferred version against warnings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I added wordreference.com as a Spanish to Portuguese to English dictionary. I will keep my corrected version if you don't find an argument against that dictionary. --RoRo (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That addresses one point. What about the others? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mate (beverage). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311163649/http://www.hejorama.com:80/culture/how-to-drink-mate-2764/ to http://www.hejorama.com/culture/how-to-drink-mate-2764/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Caffeine Content?

I'm wondering why an article which includes such intricate details of the content, usage, customs and history of a simple beverage fails to mention that it is apparently loaded with a stimulant drug called caffeine. I spoke with a woman from Argentina yesterday who mentioned that she no longer drinks mate because it makes her hands shake due to the very high caffeine content. If true, this is certainly a point which should be made in the article. Some people are sensitive to caffeine while others simply do not want to ingest any drugs in their diet. Thanks. BrianAlex (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The article discussed it at one point, and it's still mentioned in the lede, but the discussion was removed due to lack of sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mate (drink). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105141723/http://www.gourmetretailer.com/gourmetretailer/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000696346 to http://www.gourmetretailer.com/gourmetretailer/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000696346

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Yerba"

Continuing from the discussion started here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Mate_%28beverage%29/Archive_1#.22Yerba.22

"Yerba mate" is not the plant name. The plant name is simply "mate" in south america, or "mate tree". Calling it "yerba mate" is a confusion outsiders make, it can be identified as simply "mate" in south america. "mate herb" (called yerba mate or erva mate in south america) usually refers to the actual crushed leaves ready for use. The plant itself is the mate tree/plant. Yerba/erva simply means herb, it is not part of the name and should not be used here. Either translate it or change it to just mate through the article. The yerba mate article should also be changed. There are many articles about south america with a lot of confusion on names in the english wikipedia. ~~ Someone living in south america

I agree with this. Wikiperson2737 (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Country of origin?

Wasn't the country of origin argentina? Wikiperson2737 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiperson2737: No. It originated with the Guaraní people, who primarily inhabited Paraguay, but also parts of neighbouring nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mate135.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)