Talk:Polygamy in Mapuche culture

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)