Talk:Yerba-maté/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accent over the "e"

"Both the spellings "mate" and "maté" are used in English, but the latter spelling is never used in Spanish where it means "I killed" as opposed to "gourd"."

Though I understand the point the author is trying to make here, I think it's a bit misleading to state that mispronouncing it will cause an entire change of meaning. Maybe to clear things up they should mention that the word "mate" in Spanish also can mean "kill" as a formal command. But I seems to be moving off topic -my vote is that the sentence simply be removed.Viper5030 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a vote. I find it informative. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's informative because it explains the variance in English. I move to remove the last two "citation neededs" in that paragraph, however. We don't need to cite a dictionary to explain the meaning of a common word even when it's in another language, particularly when it's a conjugated form! It's also ridiculous to request a citation for there only being one spelling of mate (the drink) in Spanish. May as well as for a citation proving that "the" is only spelled one way in English. Frimmin (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Frimmin

Medical claims

Any claims of medical benefits from maté must be supported by reliable medical sources to the standards of WP:MEDRS. I have removed a chunk of material which made such claims but did not meet these standards. In particular, note that single primary sources are not acceptable and that in vitro effects do not equate to in vivo effects. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Cancer Section Needs Updating

Studies have shown that it might not just be the hot water that increases cancer risk, but the PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) content which is very high. The cancer section needs to be changed to reflect this.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18483349

Excerpt:

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 May;17(5):1262-8. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0025. High levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mate drinks. Kamangar F, Schantz MM, Abnet CC, Fagundes RB, Dawsey SM.

SOURCE: Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. kamangaf@mail.nih.gov Abstract

BACKGROUND: Drinking mate has been associated with cancers of the esophagus, oropharynx, larynx, lung, kidney, and bladder. We conducted this study to determine whether drinking mate could lead to substantial exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), including known carcinogens, such as benzo[a]pyrene.

METHODS: The concentrations of 21 individual PAHs were measured in dry leaves of eight commercial brands of yerba mate and in infusions made with hot (80 degrees C) or cold (5 degrees C) water. Measurements were done using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, with deuterated PAHs as the surrogates. Infusions were made by adding water to the leaves, removing the resulting infusion after 5 min, and then adding more water to the remaining leaves. This process was repeated 12 times for each infusion temperature.

RESULTS: The total concentrations of the 21 PAHs in different brands of yerba mate ranged from 536 to 2,906 ng/g dry leaves. Benzo[a]pyrene concentrations ranged from 8.03 to 53.3 ng/g dry leaves. For the mate infusions prepared using hot water and brand 1, 37% (1,092 of 2,906 ng) of the total measured PAHs and 50% (25.1 of 50 ng) of the benzo[a]pyrene content were released into the 12 infusions. Similar results were obtained for other hot and cold infusions.

CONCLUSION: Very high concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs were found in yerba mate leaves and in hot and cold mate infusions. Our results support the hypothesis that the carcinogenicity of mate may be related to its PAH content.

69.114.11.47 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a solid reference. Feel free to update. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that Theophylline has been observed to have a relaxation effect on smooth muscle and that little to no Theophylline has been found in Yerba Mate, how can it be claimed that the three xanthines have an effect effect on smooth muscle especially when caffeine and theobrimine have no smooth muscle relaxation effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

The first paragraph in the health effects section makes a number of claims that don't appear to be about yerba mate specifically, but about various compounds (e.g. polyphenols). I didn't go through all the sources but the three random ones I picked didn't even contain the word "yerba," which means that it's WP:OR and should be removed unless specific sourcing can be found.

Additionally, it appears as though this page is littered with WP:MEDRS violations. Again in the health section, note that the first sentence states that there are no double blind, clinically controlled trials (which, even if there are, the MEDRS bar is higher than that) but then goes on to discuss a number of health claims. I'll begin removing some of this material shortly if there are no objections and if adequate sourcing cannot be found. N^oformation ^Talk 23:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature yerba vs. hierba

I would suggest claiming that yerba was a historical variant spelling of hierba (There are current parallel examples in pronunciation "yielo" vs. hielo). In current Argentine usage, yerba and hierba are both words which do NOT mean the same thing. No one would ever use either one in place of the other. Many of the present-tense statements should me changed to past tense to indicate historical development of the etymology, without implying that "yerba mate" currently translates to "gourd herb" Cospelero (talk)

Better yet, just remove the spanish name altogether and just have it written "herb". First, this is not a exclusively spanish plant, this was first cultivated by local natives, which did not call it yerba. Then, it is just as popular in portuguese and spanish speaking countries in south america. And neither of them keep calling it "yerba" as if it was its name. It is not. They just say "herb" in their own language. It makes no sense to not do the same in english. The name of the herb is mate, that comes from the indigenous name "mati", "yerba" is just herb, nothing else, just call it that. --177.204.39.136 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This old comment makes a good point as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yerba_mate/Archive_1#The_leaves.2C_popularly_called_.22herb.22.3F

This is the english wikipedia, not spanish, nor portuguese, and mate herb original name comes from neither. 177.204.39.136 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia using a Spanish-language term. The hyper-correction should be discussed because it’s an alternate, and incorrect, spelling in English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Still no change on the status of the nomenclature? All articles relating to the mate plant should be changed to proper english names. ~~ Someone living in south america

"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 plant, for the beverage see: Mate"

There's a link to it in the second paragraph. Most English speakers would not be confused bout the difference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"maté"?

I'm erasing the reference to the "alternative spelling" in spanish. As a later paragraph says, there is no such spelling and "maté" is first person past of the verb "to kill". There is no other meaning related to "maté" in the RAE ditionary as the reference claims. As for the further paragraphs that addresses this "alternative spelling"/"hypercorrection" in English, I removed the reference to the "word magic dictionary" which doesn't support the "mate drink" meaning for "maté". As for the whole "maté" use in English thing, I would totally erase it, but it says the Webster dictionary and some more say so. Personally as a native, more than a hypercorrection I would call it a huge mistake. But well, English people are free to call it whatever they want, right? Dronkit (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored it because it's referenced. I recognize it's not a Spanish spelling and a hypercorrection, but it is a common English spelling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not hypercorrection: this is an example of the English usage of the accent mark (to indicate that the final E is not silent), not the Spanish usage. Oxford still lists "maté" as the only correct English spelling, and other English dictionaries give it as either the preferred or secondary spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.55.190 (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur (and am positive that I am correct) that this is not in fact a hypercorrection. Hypercorrection is when a form is seen to be "correct" in situtations where it is not, eg. "between you and I," where "between you and me" is correct, but "you and I" is believed to be correct in all situations. It has NOTHING to do with Spanish accents. It is a spelling convention in English for foreign loan words to indicate a sound instead of a silent e. Cospelero (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You could be correct based on these definitions ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypercorrection or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypercorrection) but the rule being broken is the way that word is transliterated into English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Highly important to nobody

How is it this article goes up to "High" importance when it fails to get more than a couple of readers a day? sirlanz 10:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I just downgraded it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You guys must be checking the pageviews of this talk page, because the pageviews of the article are 1313 per day, "7/1/2015 - 3/11/2019 · 1,772,054 pageviews (1,313/day)". Abductive (reasoning) 15:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not check the page views at all. It's a question of actual importance not page views though. Without knowing the page views of other subjects in the mid and high range, it's all a shot in the dark. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been reviewing all the WikiProject Plants articles using the Massviews Tool which you should try out. Put in all the Category Mid-class Plant articles, set a date range, and check the Use subject page box. Abductive (reasoning)

Alright. I don't know that page views is the beast measure of importance, but if you insist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a method of gauging importance. Top is for ideologically pure topics that are necessary for understanding plants. High and Mid are gauged on pageviews and any suggestion/mention of cultivation, use, abuse or invasiveness that matter to humans. Low is for articles that get on the order of 1 pageview a day and are just "X is a taxon" with no claim of interest to non-botanists. If an article is a subtopic the way that List of Prunus species is a subtopic of Prunus it must be one level lower. Deciding between High and Mid is the most problematic. For example, Jackfruit gets 4,254 pageviews a day, while Maize gets 3,369 pageviews a day. Now, obviously a major crop such as maize is High importance. But a plant that scores higher shouldn't be excluded from High just because it is less well known. In fact, it is getting all those pageviews because it is less well known--people are looking it up, which is the function of Wikipedia. Similarly, Yerba mate is hitting store shelves across the USA, so people are looking it up. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's been hitting store shelves for the past 20 years.

If the project agrees with you, I don't care how you assess articles, but if the project doesn't have a way to assess it, you should probably get buy-in from it. You should also probably be prepared to defend your opinions to anyone else in the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've assessed about 4,500 WPPlants articles in the last few weeks and this is the first reversion. Abductive (reasoning) 03:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)