Talk:Polygamy in Mapuche culture

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Concerns about article sourcing, as well as hook appropriateness, were not adequately addressed.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Mapuche polygamy was a cornerstone in the Mapuche people's rejection of the Christian faith in Colonial Chile? Source: "un cacique con diez mujeres podía llegar a tener más de cincuenta hijos y una gran cantidad de posibilidades de alianzas políticas. "De ahí que el rechazo a la religión católica siempre se produjera a partir de la prohibición que ésta hacía de la poligamia")
  • ALT1:... that in Mapuche polyandry is not the norm but hearsay says it does exists? Source: "Cada vez que preguntaba a las lamngenes sobre la poligamia femenina, las más liberales me decían y si ellos pueden, ¿porque no nosotras?, y me surgió la duda acerca de la existencia de la poliandria, si habría existido tradicionalmente [...] gracias a este caso me pude ir dando cuenta y descubriendo que no era único ni aislado" Millaleo Hernández, Ana Gabriel (2018). Poligamia mapuche / Pu domo ñi Duam (un asunto de mujeres): Politización y despolitización de una práctica en relación a la posición de las mujeres al interior de la sociedad mapuche (PDF) (PhD thesis) (in Spanish). Santiago de Chile: University of Chile, pages 296-298
  • ALT2:... that Mapuche polygamy has no legal recognition in Chile? Source: "la poligamia no tiene cobertura legal en Chile"

Created by Sietecolores (talk). Self-nominated at 09:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

The topic is interesting enough, but the article has several issues which needs to be resolved. The least of these involve grammar, which can be rectified easily enough. However, the image which accompanies the article says it depicts the "Martrys of Elicura," but makes no mention of this incident within the body of the article, nor does it cite its connection to it. Some of the assertions in the article are poorly cited. For example, the lede states that "Mapuche polygamy has also been reported in the low-income peripheral communes of Santiago." However, the corresponding citation makes no mention of this, although it does spend a paragraph describing a polygamous union set in an unspecified urban area. With respect to the second hook, the source it cites doensn't establish any proof. Rather, it relies on heresay about people several generations ago for whom, unfortunately, there are no records provided of their social habits. In fact, a number of quotes from within that source suggests that polyandry was strongly discouraged historically and very likely did not exist at all. One person goes so far as to say that there exists "no precedent" for polyandry in Mapuche culture, and that the very concept "without question goes against nature." Finally, the main source of the article is, simply put, poorly written. Long paragraphs consisting entirely of meandering, run-on sentences are rife throughout. Worse of all, it poses what appears to be the author's personal opinions as objective facts. I think the article itself and at least one of the hooks needs some work in order to be DYK-ready. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Work in progress. I have made some changes to address some issues CurryTime7-24 find problematic. I do however find this statement "author's personal opinions as objective facts" unacceptable and I would like to have another author that assume good faith and neutrality address this DYK nomination. I have edited and created numerous Mapuche-related articles onver the years and this is the first time I encounter such negative attitude. Of course authors leave an imprint on the articles they create and I have done plenty of work in selecting the information to include which I think is encyclopedically relevant. As written above, I am addressing most of the issues CurryTime7-24 is concerned about But I will accept he/she being the reviewer here. Sietecolores (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sietecolores, CurryTime7-24, it's been over a month since the above posts; where does this nomination stand? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. It doesn't seem like very many of the problems which I addressed last month were fixed. The article seems to contain a lot of original research by the editor who nominated this article. (The writing style of this article and the essay which is the main source here would seem to bear this out.) As I had mentioned earlier, the main source itself is poorly written, unclear, and consists of a lot of personal observations. To be clear, my objection isn't to the subject, the editor's arguments, or even the fact that the editor is citing themselves (they probably are knowledgeable in this subject). Rather, I just wish that there was a better source which clearly back up their arguments. That their mere say so about this or that (for example, regarding polyandry in Mapuche culture) was published in an academic paper without any way to verify, or without providing any criteria by which one could observe how the author reached their conclusions doesn't prove anything. There must be other academic papers and books on the topic of polygamy in Mapuche culture available which can be used as additional sources? Otherwise, it's an interesting subject, but in my opinion the article needs a fair bit of work before it's DYK ready. Maybe another editor can weigh in on this? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Correction, the main source is not an essay, it is a PhD thesis from the University of Chile. The thesis is well-written and is essentially an on-field enquiry into the topic of Mapuche polygamy. I can´t see what the problem with is. Second, much if not all of what may be called "original research" is simply rewriting as to avoid close paraphrasing and have a coherent text, rather than a collection of statements. Some of CurryTime7-24 were plainly ridiculous as to ask for a source that state the image used in the article comes from the said source. This together with other such as attributing me WP:OR and acting in bad confirm my view CurryTime7-24 is either biased against the topic, me or may not simply be familiar with how Wikipedia works. Sietecolores (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to add with some relevancy to this discussion that Sietecolores please behave more civilly and refrain from making personal attacks. I do not doubt that they may be knowledgeable, that they mean well, and care passionately about this topic. But their combative behavior is against their own interests as it will make other editors disinclined to want to help or cooperate with them. Again, another fluent Spanish speaker is welcome to review the aforementioned thesis. Maybe they’ll disagree that its methodology is obscure and flawed, that the author’s grasp of grammar leaves something to be desired. Returning to the topic, ALT1 is awkwardly written. It’s also not confirmed by the cited source. What it says is that it led the author to suspect that polyandry in Mapuche culture may exist; nowhere in the quote or thesis cited is confirmation of its existence presented, whether historical or contemporary. I’ll provide a nearly exact translation: “Every time I asked the lamngenes about polyandry, the more liberal ones would tell me and if [the men] can, why not us? and the doubt was raised in me concerning the existence of polyandry, whether it had existed traditionally. . . thanks to this case I could go start realizing and discovering that this was neither unique nor isolated.” —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24, I have already denounced your bias, and can not do more than asking you to rectify it. By you overall hostile position I still consider you an unsuitable reviewer.

More quotes to support ALT1: "y encontré dentro de mi propia comunidad un caso de poligamia femenina, en la época de mi tatarabuelo, ella era una de sus hermanas, quien ya estaba casada con un Epullan, pero habría acontecido que se habría enamorado de un trabajador de nombre Huaiquipan y se quedó con los dos" (translation: I found in my community a case of femmenine polygamy, in the times of my great-grandfather, she was one of his sisters, who was already married with an Epullan, but had fallen in love with a worker named Huaiquipan, and she kept both") Sietecolores (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, please refrain from uncivil remarks. I have repeatedly stated that I have no bias one way or another with this topic (if only because it was one which I had never heard of), that I do not doubt that you’re knowledgeable on this topic, and that you care very much about it. My problems with this DYK nomination are not with the subject, which I actually find interesting, or you (why?); rather, the article itself is poorly sourced, the first two ALTs are poorly sourced (and misleading as another editor has weighed in), and that the main source material this article relies on is deficient. Leaving aside why you didn’t include your immediately aforementioned quote in your initial nomination, it still is no good. It doesn’t provide evidence; doesn’t confirm anything. Unfortunately, it’s a matter of folklore, whether real or not. In fact, there are also a number of people in the cited thesis who harshly reject any possibility of polyandry in Mapuche culture. The fact that there is no verifiable documentation of this phenomenon extant would support this view. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no opinion on the suitability of the article overall (although, I would hope that for controversial "anthropological" examinations of real people that the sourcing had best be rock solid here to put this on the front page), but the original hook is misleading and should be rejected. It implies that the Mapuche rejected Christianity - that is not really true, at least not without major qualifiers. I'm willing to believe it was an issue of dispute that slowed the spread of Christianity and caused anger, sure, but the Mapuche (and pretty well everyone else in Chile / Argentina) did in fact become predominately Christian. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• After reading the input from SnowFire and considering that my initial qualms about this DYK nomination were not resolved, I’m going to confirm to reject this. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The original hook is a generalization of the same kind that is found in the best history books about the subject (e.g. Bengoa). If I added qualifers I would fairly or unfairly be accused of WP:OR. To clarify the matter Mapuches are in colonial-era context chiefly understood as those "Araucanian" tribes that were out of Spanish rule, who largelly rejected the Christian faith as it is evident by the neighigle penetration of Christianity into the territory over the course of more than two centuries. Sietecolores (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No, accurate phrasing would not get you accused of original research. If we really had to ship some variant of the first hook, then something like

"that '''[[Mapuche polygamy]]''' was an area of dispute that complicated Christian missionary attempts to the [[Mapuche]] people during the [[Colonial Chile|colonial era of Chile]]?"

would be fine (assuming it is backed by sources). As a reminder, the vast majority of readers of English Wikipedia don't know who the Mapuche are at all. There are plenty of actual examples of people who rejected Christianity around the world, sometimes because of just such an issue (see Chinese rites controversy for a famous example). Your phrasing makes it sound to casual readers similar to the Chinese case, where local practice held out and Christianity never took root, but that's not the case. My version both uses "complicates" rather than a flashy cornerstone / rejects, as well as explicitly identifies the era to make clear it was a problem of the time. Again, this hook is talking about real people who have been largely Christian for generations at this point, with those earlier two centuries as ancient history. I have to presume that polygamous practices are largely ancient history, as well, which should also be clarified in the hook.

Anyway, I concur with the DYK reject. Not because it isn't a fascinating, underrepresented topic - it is, and it's great you're helping out in that area. Rather, this kind of topic on a sensitive cultural practice with negative implications requires ironclad sources to avoid an entirely justified scandal if it turns out that the one professor's work this is based on is wrong, overblown, or just at variance with the community they are covering. There have been near-misses in bad DYK hooks before. Some articles just aren't great fits for DYK, but that doesn't mean they're bad or non-valued. Just hard to put on DYK. SnowFire (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Source material for this article

I’ll address some of the concerns brought up with my DYK review here, as they are more pertinent to the article itself. Most of the material in this article is based on a doctoral thesis which is poorly written. Elementary orthographical and grammatical errors are common throughout. But more troubling is that it often does not confirm what is stated in the article, or even contradicts it. A typical example is: “Mapuche polyandry is not the norm but exists according to hearsay, and in these cases the men are often brothers.” Reading the cited thesis, however, one finds that not only does such a polygamous union likely not exist now, but probably has never existed. Referring to the page cited, one finds that the author of the thesis asked Mapuche women about the possibility of such a union, whereupon the “more liberal ones among them” replied “if [Mapuche men] can do it, why not us?” However, no proof of polyandry is presented. Instead, the author provides only various quotes from people who say they have never seen such practices, but heard that some unnamed so-and-so from somewhere may have done this a long time ago. The author then speculates that the non-existence of polyandry, or discussion thereof is due to the “patriarchal pacts which constructed ancient times.” However, if Mapuche polyandry does exist today, then why did the author not seek these unions out to interview for their thesis? Why only rely on second-hand reports about something which may exist today? Why would one of the Mapuche she quoted vehemently deny the existence of such unions now and historically, going so far as to say that they “go against nature” and are considered acts of “degeneracy?” As for the editor claiming that my concerns about this article are not borne from good faith and neutrality, all I can say is that I’ve never even heard of this subject before, and therefore had no feelings about it one way or another. I took it upon to read and review because it looked interesting. However, I would gladly invite another Spanish-speaker to review the thesis upon which this article is based and come to their own conclusions. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Also: "According to me, there is no need to have another auhtority say something is relevant, while writing an encyclopedia we do select the notable from the non-notable. The incident in question is indeed mentioned in Alonso de Ovalle's work in page 288-289." According to you, but according to Wikipedia protocols editors must properly source statements presented as facts within articles. I'm sure the incident is mentioned in some work of Ovalle's. But it is incumbent upon you to cite it properly for this article. Most people, even within Chile, probably would not know about this incident, much less understand that it was triggered by conflict over the polygamous practices of the Mapuche. Instead of mentioning Ovalle's book in an edit summary, how about making a proper mention and citation of it within the article itself where it would be the most useful? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"The incident in question is indeed mentioned in Alonso de Ovalle's work in page 288-289", yes according to me, you have another view on which page that is? Wikipedia policies, which you should know by now, does allows for editors to select which material should be included in the article. And, yes the Ovalle citation is comming. Sietecolores (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)