| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Diablada |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 03:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | MarshalN20, Unknown Lupus, Dentren and Erebedhel |
| Mediator(s) | Xavexgoem ( talk) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
I'll try to be precise and short, I disagree with the present content of the article Diablada because
- I consider that the article does not start with a proper definition of the word itself Diablada I suggested to take into consideration the definition of the Real Academia Española (since is a Spanish word), original text in Spanish [1] - Google translated [2] that's why I've put a POV-title sign [3] yet MarshalN20 considers that it's against WP:NAD but I don't think that's what the rule really says, for me it says that when the article only limits itself to provide a dictionary definition it should be in Wiktionary, but it doesn't say that we can't use a dictionary as a source.
- I consider that there are parts in the article where the text does not correspond to what the source says or only mention one small part hiding important information, so yesterday I did these modifications [4] [5], but they were reverted in an aggressive way and without reaching consensus [6] just giving explanations like "prevents plagiarism" [7] but for me according to WP:SYN there is a clear difference between "preventing plagiarism" and lying.
- Basically the controversial parts of the article are based in two newspapers [8] and [9] which I consider unreliable sources but when I try to add new sources like the UNESCO they are again tagged as "non-neutral" sources and deleted [10].
And above all I consider that trying to debate with Marshal20 and Unknown Lupus to try to reach consensus is impossible at this point, I consider that MarshalN20's way to address to people is extremely aggressive our conversations often end up being deviated to topics that don't have anything to do with the article, he barely ever mentions sources, but he often writes long rantings that I find hard to understand and end up flooding the talk page without reaching anywhere and making it difficult for others to keep track of the debate. And about Unknown Lupus I won't mention what I think about that account anymore but his only purpose is to revert edits without discussing them and occasionally give opinions in favour of Marshal also unsourced and that aren't relevant to the content of the article, he only claims that he's "gonna have a close eye on the article". I consider Dentren a very reasonable person with good intentions but sadly I think we got him trapped in this discussion.
- I'll be even more short. These are the kinds of edits that User:Erebedhel constantly does to the article: [11] (Breaks WP:NPOV), [12] (Changes things to favor Bolivia), [13] (Speaks of "intentionality of the neighboring countries of Peru and Chile to claim as theirs typical dances of Bolivia"), [14] (Including overstatements and information that is not present in the source); among other things. These are just a few of problems that this user constantly brings into the article; and this is why the situation generally turns into constant fruitless arguments.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What would you like to change about this?
I consider that the way of work should be improved, I think that after all I expressed to MarshalN20 my perspective and I believe I understand what's his, I know we don't agree and probably we'll never agree on this subject, yet I consider that a good article should explain the problem and not take a side. Also I think that the method "revert-rant in the talk page-not reaching consensus-but since I reverted first I won" is unfair I couldn't make a single edition in two weeks and is highly frustrating because I studied this topic for more than 3 months already but the conversation is based only in critics to my country, personal attacks, arbitrary reversions and really incomprehensible explanations. We don't have to like each others but I wish that we can just focus on the content from now on avoid long explanations just get to the point always using sources.
How do you think we can help?
It'd be helpful that a mediator makes sure to remind each one of us the rules because when I try to mention them they are interpreted as attacks. Someone to make sure that we won't deviate arguing about useless things and just focus on the content. Basic Spanish knowledge could be useful too.
Mediator notes
I'm gonna take a pretty ad-hoc approach to this mediation. Questions will be directed at individual editors, and I discourage threaded discussions. If User X says something User Y wishes to reply to, please say it to me instead. Thank you! Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for volunteering to help. This ought to be fun.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Question for Erebedhel: NPOV?
Hi. You can call me Xav. Question first for Erebedhel:
You have been accused of editing against NPOV, per this edit. Why do you think this edit is perceived as being not neutral? Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Xav thank your for taking this case, well I perceive that MarshalN20 consider my edit as non-neutral because it shows a bigger importance for Bolivia regarding this dance. However I'll appeal to WP:UNDUE because precisely I consider that the article, as it is, is balanced in favor to Peru, when the dance in most studies, the UNESCO, the Diccionario de la Real Academia, etc is described as a "traditional dance from the city of Oruro, Bolivia with roots in ancient traditions of the uru" (the name Oruro derives from the Uru civilization) so I consider important to explain that it's a dance generally considered as from that city, that for Bolivia has a major importance, that since 1977 there is a explicit cultural policy defending this dance and it's almost like a national symbol. However there is a dispute with Peru so that's why I consider that it's important to mention that is since 2003 patrimony of Peru as well (it's danced since 1918 according to some sources, some others say 1576 though) and since 1956 it formed an important part of the northern Chilean festivities. But I consider that resting the importance of Bolivia, putting it in a second place and making it look as a Peruvian dance and that is the current government of Bolivia the one who are imagining things is not objective, I consider that the introduction itself is not orienting well to the reader what this dance is and what it represents for each country.
- I must point out that of course there are several versions about its origins and that's a matter of debate, we'll get to it eventually but talking about the current definition and present importance I think that the first paragraph isn't providing enough information-- Erebedhel - Talk 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Xav, the start of the second paragraph clearly states: "The origin of the Diablada is a matter of dispute." Thus, I don't see how it can be claimed that the article is "in favor to Peru." Also, it is referenced that the "oldest" (Perhaps "oldest-known" might be a better word, for new information could come up) Diablada recorded is the one that took place in 1576; and the reason it appears before the others in the paragraph is due to its precise date (not to favor Peru). Also, in that same second sentence of the second paragraph the word "allegedly" is used when mentioning the possibility of the dance spreading from there (hence, it's not given as a "fact"). Right after that sentence, the other theories (Potosi or Oruro origins) are given equal weight by providing the best amount of information that can be taken from the sources; it's not put "in second place" (I don't understand why the user views it that way). The extra information that the user suggests has deep nationalist motives and can be quite controversial. For instance, the UNESCO hasn't made any official statement in regards to the current dispute of the Diablada, and it would be quite an exaggerated act of Wikipedia to attribute the UNESCO a claim in this dispute if they have not made an official statement at all (and the UNESCO might be even doing this on purpose, in order to stay away from the controversy). The UNESCO made a statement for the Carnaval de Oruro, not for the Diablada; nonetheless, information regarding the Diablada on the statement has been included in the body of the paragraph (in the yet-to-be-developed section of Bolivia's regional variation of the dance).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
How can we reconcile the infobox differences?
Looking at the diffs, there seems to be a significant difference between the Peruvian and Bolivian versions. One of the diffs changes the infobox, if I recall. How do we reconcile that? Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this might sound and probably is a bit biased from my part, but I see the original infobox (prior to the changes made by the other user; and the one to which it was reverted back to) as less controversial and more accurate than the proposed edit. In order to simplify things, I will call the original proposal (the one I favor), "Proposal A." I will then refer to the second proposal (the one endorsed by the other user) as "Proposal B". Here is the link: [15]
- To begin with, the "Stylistic Origins" table from Proposal A is more informative in regards to the origin of the dance (Includes the "Ball de diables," but also especifies that the matter is part of "Auto Sacramental" origins); but it excludes the mention to the "Lama lama" (I don't know if it is a ritual, or if it is a dance; I don't think it was ever really explained).
- Next, the "Cultural Origins" of Proposal A is by far less controversial and, technically, more accurate than the one in Proposal B. While in Proposal B the dance is attributed origins in the 20th century, Proposal A attributes origins to the Viceroyalty era (17th-19th centuries). Moreover, Proposal B once again attributes origins that favor Bolivia above the rest.
- Third, I think that the instruments from Proposal A and Proposal B should be mixed somehow. Nowadays, the different Diabladas have different instruments from the original; hence why the article has a "regional variation" section.
- Fourth, I don't understand why the reference to Northwestern Argentina was removed. According to this Honduran newspaper, the Diablada is popular in northern Argentina (which means northwestern Argentina should be edited accordingly), Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru. However, it doesn't mention Chile (which is where the dance is also danced, in its northern part). Here's the newspaper: [16]. Here's some references on its reliability (seems to be reliable): [17].
- Fifth, the rest of the edits were obviously pro-Bolivian. However, I think that perhaps the infobox would need to be alphabetized (in order to keep a fair standard).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take into account your advise to avoid threaded discussions, so I'll answer directly to you Xav. And I think that the only way to explain the problem is by presenting the information directly in the article trying to be faithful to the sources and explain who says what. For me to hide that the UNESCO said with this words in the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity declaration "The traditional llama llama or diablada in worship of the Uru god Tiw became the main dance at the Carnival of Oruro." is not the right way. It can be contrasted and say that the Peruvian historian José Morales Serruto considers that the origins of the Diablada go back to 1576 in Juli, but not say "The origin of the Diablada is a matter of dispute." then take a side and say "The oldest Diablada recorded took place in 1576 with the native Lupakas people of Juli as an irrefutable fact using a source of a Peruvian newspaper which obviously will be biased while the UNESCO says that it has even older roots in Oruro because the Urus are the most ancient civilization in the Andes. And worst if there is another Peruvian historian Enrique Cuentas Ormachea who quoting a newspaper from Puno in February 2nd of 1918 says that was the day when the first Diablada was presented for the first time brought from Bolivia page 35. We have to remember that the version of José Morales Serruto appears only after the Miss Universe contest dispute while most studies, Bolivian, Peruvian, Chilean before this dispute consider the Diablada as a dance born in Oruro. I think we're not considering an important fact that many sources right now in the article are related to the Miss Universe dispute so the timing is not the most adequate, yet there are more sources from other years that could be more objective which aren't being considered. -- Erebedhel - Talk 02:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Xav, for the sake of not making things too complicated, I'll respond to each point in bullet format:
- The UNESCO talks about the Diablada being “traditional” and the “main dance” in the Carnaval de Oruro. However, it is not certifying that the origin of the dance is Bolivian, because the “Uru” (or “Uros”) people were displaced from Oruro to Lake Titicaca (Particularly into the modern-day Peruvian sector of the lake). Moreover, the UNESCO utterly fails in elaborating on the history of Uru peoples, or explaining anything in regards as to what happened to them. These people were invaded by the Aymaras and later the Incas; by the time the invasions were over, the “Uru” were nothing more than a mixture of Inca-Aymara (Historians and Anthropologists generally label them more with the Aymara, however) peoples with very few still retaining anything related to the original “Uru” traditions. Hence, when the Europeans came along with their “theatrical dance,” what they met was with Aymara natives that had taken some Uru traditions as a result of the mix with these people (They did not meet up with the Uru; which to this day live in the floating islands in the Titicaca and barely come out of there at all).
- As such, what it is highly illogical to impose the UNESCO statement regarding the “Uru tradition” above a specific date in which the “oldest” Diablada (which is the concept of the article) has been recorded.
- Obviously, if even here at WP we are arguing over the “origin of the Diablada,” and if two nations (Peru and Bolivia) have been arguing over the origin of the Diablada, then the origin of the dance is in dispute. By attempting to remove that statement, all I see is once again nationalist bias in favor of Bolivia.
- It's not a claim made by Serruto. There's also this Dr. Arbulu person that also makes mention of this event. There's a nice source in the Spanish WP regarding a Jesuit priest by the name of “Diego Gonzales Holguin” and a group of other Jesuits which did quite a historic and noble thing for their time. They settled in Juli, which according to the source was a route from where the natives were enslaved and sent to the mines in Peru and Bolivia, and made great efforts to “Christianize” the natives in order to help them prevent abuse by the Spaniards. They taught the natives Spanish, taught them of the Christian religion through the “Autos Sacramentales,” they taught them Spanish customs, and even had direct arguments with the Spanish authorities in order to end the Encomienda system that was mass-killing the natives. It's quite a good book to read really (IMO, it would even make for a good movie, but the Hollywood peeps barely take note of the non-English works): Check page 478.
- One thing is having “roots” in a dance, and the other is when the dance actually was first created (For instance, the “Cueca” is a dance that has roots in the “Zamacueca,” but it doesn't mean that the “Zamacueca” is when the first time the “Cueca” was created). In fact, perhaps the best place to mention the “llama llama” of the Uru would be in the first sentence of the article (to contrast it with the “Autos Sacramentales” of the Spaniards). However, the problem here is that Erebedhel associates Uru with Bolivia; when, as it has already been mentioned, the “Uru” peoples by this point and time had spread all the way to the Titicaca region (which is Peru-Bolivia). To make matters even funnier, the “Lupaka” peoples that allegedly first performed the Diablada live at the shores of the lake (so there's obviously a connection of traditions there).
- Ormachea updated his views in the following article, [18]. Ormachea mentions that a Peruvian group “Los Vaporinos” did a Bolivian-style Diablada in 1918, however the article also mentions that the Diablada was older than that (The Diablada didn't originate in Peru in “1918,” that the Vaporinos did that Bolivian-style dance is a different story not the origin): [19].
- I don't understand how old information regarding the Diablada can be more relevant than the updated information? Science is constantly updating itself, and the work done by Anthropologists and Historians is a type of science for it leaves a room for eventual corrections. The claim being made is that the new information is incorrect because it's in direct reference to the Miss Universe dispute; and that argument is really quite extreme. The “Miss Universe” contest dispute is what sparked new interest on the matter, but that doesn't mean that the new information is fake or incorrect.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Protecting the MedCab Page
← Hey, folks, I'm off to bed for tonight. Do you mind me protecting this page? Conversation tends to get out of control sometimes, and I'm back and it's ...ugh... so much to sift through :-)
Xavexgoem (
talk) 02:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok Xav, sweet dreams, I don't have any problem if you protect the page. We'll continue tomorrow. Bye and thank you for taking the case.-- Erebedhel - Talk 02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go right ahead. I have to dedicate some time tonight to research work as well (not a fun way to spend a Friday evening, but as long as I'm getting paid it's all good). However, I would like to provide a reply to Erebedhel's most recent statement; so, if you unblock the article at a later point and I haven't posted a reply yet, please don't think that I'm ignoring the statement. I'll post up my response tomorrow when you return. Have a good night.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
i'll have to temporarily suspend this for a day. after cleaning my keyboard, i lost functionality for both my shift keys, my forward slash key -- and with it my question mark -- and i can't navigate with the arrows. or make exclamation marks to show my rage at this turn of events. can't capit i's, either. probably be just a bit before i can get a new keyboard. and, oh hey, can't make four tildes. have to use the button at the top -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh it's ok Xav, I hope you can get a new keyboard soon. Meanwhile I'll be dedicating my time to read and work in other articles. -- Erebedhel - Talk 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- lol. Hence why I keep about 3 extra keyboards around (old, but still working). I'll postpone adding my comment as well then (as you said, we wouldn't want this to turn into a long discussion without you keeping control of it).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Balance between Peruvian and Bolivian versions?
Alright, I'm back. Where were we? Ah: balance. Is this article balanced between the Peruvian and Bolivian versions? Xavexgoem ( talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back Xav, good to have you back. Well I think that there isn't a balance. I think that the Bolivian version could not be even explained, besides on the Bolivian side there are at least two versions, one that says it comes from the Uru explaining that it was performed in the place where the city of Oruro is now which was considered a sacred place, which is the version that the UNESCO manages [20] I've found other sites where that theory is further explained maybe I could complement it with maps and diagrams. But other historians also think it comes from Potosí and later arrived to Oruro [21] that theory is also managed by a Peruvian author Nicomedes Santa Cruz [22] in page 285.
- Besides those are referring to the roots, most of the sources when describing the Diablada mention an ancient beginning, but then talk about the Diablada starting near the 20th century, Peru claims it's back from 1892 when the musical band Sikuris del Barrio Mañazo was created, Bolivia claims it's 1904 when Pedro Pablo Corrales formed a dance squad Gran Tradicional y Auténtica Diablada Oruro about that subject I think that the work of Enrique Cuentas Ormachea should be analyzed because in this article on page 35 he mentions that in 1918 in the Peruvian city of Puno, Pedro Pablo Corrales taught the dance to a squad named "Vaporinos" and that became the first Peruvian Diablada Squad, that later in the 1920's due to budget problems hired the Sikuris del Barrio Mañazo, but this year after the Miss Universe contest, he published an editorial [23] where he don't mention that, but also mentions that it was in the 1950s when the first mask workshops were opened in Peru because before that all the masks came from the Bolivian mask maker Antonio Vizcarra, and later in the 70s the first suit embroider shops were opened n Peru because also before that date all came from La Paz, Bolivia.
- I was thinking that maybe you're not too familiar with the Miss Universe dispute which I think is the reason why there is a dispute in the article. I consider that is not a relevant event but it does have a considerable weight in the article right now which is something I disagree, but perhaps you can understand the bottom of the problem with this article in the Wall Street journal about the dispute [24].-- Erebedhel - Talk 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. Marshall, would you please comment independent of Erebedhel's comment? Xavexgoem ( talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will, except for the last paragraph (which I have labeled off-topic). In regards to the first questin: Yes and no. The introduction is balanced, but the "History" and the "Regional Variations" sections are not balanced for they only present the Peruvian side of the story. However, this hasn't been because we (as in me, Lupos, and Dentren) prevented any addition into the history section. Erebedhele's main edits focused on the introduction, and those edits, as I have posted above, weren't considered to be NPOV. The only time, if I recall correctly, that Erebedhel edited the history section, he wrote this,
[25]. I would like to analyze and explain why I did not agree with this edit and once again considered it was being twisted to fit particular POVs:
- "that was written in Aymara simultaneously in four cities": Were the priests superheroes? How can they write all at the same time and at 4 different cities? I didn't know that there were cell phones back then...and, obviously, the source never states this.
- "were the figure of the archangel Micheal does not appear": This is a blatant overstatement that is, obviously, attempting to oppose the idea that the Diablada was created at this point (since the Diablada requires the participation of the archangel Michael; he is a central character of it). According to the Wikipedia article on this character, whose wikilink is on the quote of Erebedhele, "According to some Christian theologians, Saint Michael may appear in Scripture where his name is not mentioned. Examples of this include the cherub who stood at the gate of paradise, "to keep the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24)." Oh, and, zomg, the Spanish priests in Juli were Christian! zomg zomg zomg.
- The other statements were incorrectly standardized as if they all took place at the same time, but the source clearly states that the first presentation of an Aymara-written religious play was done in Juli.
- In regards to the "Regional Variations" section, I haven't done anything in regards to Oruro because I don't want to create any conflicts (or make the already on-going problem any worse). If that particular section hasn't been improved, it's most certainly not because anybody is trying promote any specific POV in favor of Peru.
- Off topic: Compare this 1776 picture of the dance,
[26], with a modern-day Diablada, and the most obvious thing is that it's essentially the same (the angel and a bunch of demons). The 8th paragraph of this source mentions how the Diablada of Puno is heavily influenced by the Aymaran "Danza de Anchanchu":
[27]. It would probably be good to present this as well as the "Uru proposal." Then there's also a source in the article by "Jiménez Borja" that speaks of how the dancers originally made their own masks before they turned to the Bolivian mask-maker, and then later to the Peruvian proffesional mask-makers.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The snarkiness is maybe not the best approach, Marshal? As for the first bullet point, I immediately interpreted that not to mean at the exact same time. Perhaps what was meant was a shortish period of time?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I evaluated all of the possibilities that the statement could have made. I do not simply delete things just because I don't agree with them. I checked the source a couple (or maybe 3) times before I decided to remove that as non-factual. Garcilaso de la Vega, the author of the book, only writes about a play written in Aymara that is presented in Juli. Next, he goes on to speak about a recital done in Potosi, no longer under the context of a play written in Aymara, and so on. I'll try to be less sarcastic.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The snarkiness is maybe not the best approach, Marshal? As for the first bullet point, I immediately interpreted that not to mean at the exact same time. Perhaps what was meant was a shortish period of time?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will, except for the last paragraph (which I have labeled off-topic). In regards to the first questin: Yes and no. The introduction is balanced, but the "History" and the "Regional Variations" sections are not balanced for they only present the Peruvian side of the story. However, this hasn't been because we (as in me, Lupos, and Dentren) prevented any addition into the history section. Erebedhele's main edits focused on the introduction, and those edits, as I have posted above, weren't considered to be NPOV. The only time, if I recall correctly, that Erebedhel edited the history section, he wrote this,
[25]. I would like to analyze and explain why I did not agree with this edit and once again considered it was being twisted to fit particular POVs:
![[26]](/info/en/?search=File:Danzan_san_miguel_7_diablos.jpg){kind=link}
Ignorant Bolivians
Morales propaganda
Dead Bolivians
Marshal, if I ever hear a complaint about someone else's "POV edit" again, I'm closing this mediation.
Are we clear? Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Stay cool: Talk page ≠ Article. That's clear enough.
- The definition of propaganda, [28]. That's clear enough.
- Also, the comments are opinions in response to the opinions of the other contributor (Who passed himself off as different people), which in the end turned out to be a user by the name of "RBCM." Did my opinions ever get into the article? No. All of the "delicate" information that needs sourcing in the article has appropiate sourcing, with neither my personal POV in it or overstatements (or " hyperbole." The definitions are close, but I think the word I used first is more correct). Is this clear?
- I already had a talk with admin User:BozMo ( [29]), and some other lads, about those comments. It ended in a warning for me to no longer do that in the talk page, and I have been faithful to that thus far. Is this clear?
- Finally, please don't threaten me. I honestly expected polite treatment, but if you want to use threats rather than ask nicely, don't expect me to curl in the corner in fear. I will continue to speak about POV edits done to the article (if the need arises), and if you want to close the mediation because of my complaint about the POV edits done to the article--rather, if you want use that as an excuse to close this MedCab--then you can go ahead do so right now. After all, I'm not the one who decides what goes on in this MedCab. I hope this is all clear.
- Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Diablada |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 03:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | MarshalN20, Unknown Lupus, Dentren and Erebedhel |
| Mediator(s) | Xavexgoem ( talk) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
I'll try to be precise and short, I disagree with the present content of the article Diablada because
- I consider that the article does not start with a proper definition of the word itself Diablada I suggested to take into consideration the definition of the Real Academia Española (since is a Spanish word), original text in Spanish [1] - Google translated [2] that's why I've put a POV-title sign [3] yet MarshalN20 considers that it's against WP:NAD but I don't think that's what the rule really says, for me it says that when the article only limits itself to provide a dictionary definition it should be in Wiktionary, but it doesn't say that we can't use a dictionary as a source.
- I consider that there are parts in the article where the text does not correspond to what the source says or only mention one small part hiding important information, so yesterday I did these modifications [4] [5], but they were reverted in an aggressive way and without reaching consensus [6] just giving explanations like "prevents plagiarism" [7] but for me according to WP:SYN there is a clear difference between "preventing plagiarism" and lying.
- Basically the controversial parts of the article are based in two newspapers [8] and [9] which I consider unreliable sources but when I try to add new sources like the UNESCO they are again tagged as "non-neutral" sources and deleted [10].
And above all I consider that trying to debate with Marshal20 and Unknown Lupus to try to reach consensus is impossible at this point, I consider that MarshalN20's way to address to people is extremely aggressive our conversations often end up being deviated to topics that don't have anything to do with the article, he barely ever mentions sources, but he often writes long rantings that I find hard to understand and end up flooding the talk page without reaching anywhere and making it difficult for others to keep track of the debate. And about Unknown Lupus I won't mention what I think about that account anymore but his only purpose is to revert edits without discussing them and occasionally give opinions in favour of Marshal also unsourced and that aren't relevant to the content of the article, he only claims that he's "gonna have a close eye on the article". I consider Dentren a very reasonable person with good intentions but sadly I think we got him trapped in this discussion.
- I'll be even more short. These are the kinds of edits that User:Erebedhel constantly does to the article: [11] (Breaks WP:NPOV), [12] (Changes things to favor Bolivia), [13] (Speaks of "intentionality of the neighboring countries of Peru and Chile to claim as theirs typical dances of Bolivia"), [14] (Including overstatements and information that is not present in the source); among other things. These are just a few of problems that this user constantly brings into the article; and this is why the situation generally turns into constant fruitless arguments.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What would you like to change about this?
I consider that the way of work should be improved, I think that after all I expressed to MarshalN20 my perspective and I believe I understand what's his, I know we don't agree and probably we'll never agree on this subject, yet I consider that a good article should explain the problem and not take a side. Also I think that the method "revert-rant in the talk page-not reaching consensus-but since I reverted first I won" is unfair I couldn't make a single edition in two weeks and is highly frustrating because I studied this topic for more than 3 months already but the conversation is based only in critics to my country, personal attacks, arbitrary reversions and really incomprehensible explanations. We don't have to like each others but I wish that we can just focus on the content from now on avoid long explanations just get to the point always using sources.
How do you think we can help?
It'd be helpful that a mediator makes sure to remind each one of us the rules because when I try to mention them they are interpreted as attacks. Someone to make sure that we won't deviate arguing about useless things and just focus on the content. Basic Spanish knowledge could be useful too.
Mediator notes
I'm gonna take a pretty ad-hoc approach to this mediation. Questions will be directed at individual editors, and I discourage threaded discussions. If User X says something User Y wishes to reply to, please say it to me instead. Thank you! Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for volunteering to help. This ought to be fun.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Question for Erebedhel: NPOV?
Hi. You can call me Xav. Question first for Erebedhel:
You have been accused of editing against NPOV, per this edit. Why do you think this edit is perceived as being not neutral? Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Xav thank your for taking this case, well I perceive that MarshalN20 consider my edit as non-neutral because it shows a bigger importance for Bolivia regarding this dance. However I'll appeal to WP:UNDUE because precisely I consider that the article, as it is, is balanced in favor to Peru, when the dance in most studies, the UNESCO, the Diccionario de la Real Academia, etc is described as a "traditional dance from the city of Oruro, Bolivia with roots in ancient traditions of the uru" (the name Oruro derives from the Uru civilization) so I consider important to explain that it's a dance generally considered as from that city, that for Bolivia has a major importance, that since 1977 there is a explicit cultural policy defending this dance and it's almost like a national symbol. However there is a dispute with Peru so that's why I consider that it's important to mention that is since 2003 patrimony of Peru as well (it's danced since 1918 according to some sources, some others say 1576 though) and since 1956 it formed an important part of the northern Chilean festivities. But I consider that resting the importance of Bolivia, putting it in a second place and making it look as a Peruvian dance and that is the current government of Bolivia the one who are imagining things is not objective, I consider that the introduction itself is not orienting well to the reader what this dance is and what it represents for each country.
- I must point out that of course there are several versions about its origins and that's a matter of debate, we'll get to it eventually but talking about the current definition and present importance I think that the first paragraph isn't providing enough information-- Erebedhel - Talk 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Xav, the start of the second paragraph clearly states: "The origin of the Diablada is a matter of dispute." Thus, I don't see how it can be claimed that the article is "in favor to Peru." Also, it is referenced that the "oldest" (Perhaps "oldest-known" might be a better word, for new information could come up) Diablada recorded is the one that took place in 1576; and the reason it appears before the others in the paragraph is due to its precise date (not to favor Peru). Also, in that same second sentence of the second paragraph the word "allegedly" is used when mentioning the possibility of the dance spreading from there (hence, it's not given as a "fact"). Right after that sentence, the other theories (Potosi or Oruro origins) are given equal weight by providing the best amount of information that can be taken from the sources; it's not put "in second place" (I don't understand why the user views it that way). The extra information that the user suggests has deep nationalist motives and can be quite controversial. For instance, the UNESCO hasn't made any official statement in regards to the current dispute of the Diablada, and it would be quite an exaggerated act of Wikipedia to attribute the UNESCO a claim in this dispute if they have not made an official statement at all (and the UNESCO might be even doing this on purpose, in order to stay away from the controversy). The UNESCO made a statement for the Carnaval de Oruro, not for the Diablada; nonetheless, information regarding the Diablada on the statement has been included in the body of the paragraph (in the yet-to-be-developed section of Bolivia's regional variation of the dance).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
How can we reconcile the infobox differences?
Looking at the diffs, there seems to be a significant difference between the Peruvian and Bolivian versions. One of the diffs changes the infobox, if I recall. How do we reconcile that? Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this might sound and probably is a bit biased from my part, but I see the original infobox (prior to the changes made by the other user; and the one to which it was reverted back to) as less controversial and more accurate than the proposed edit. In order to simplify things, I will call the original proposal (the one I favor), "Proposal A." I will then refer to the second proposal (the one endorsed by the other user) as "Proposal B". Here is the link: [15]
- To begin with, the "Stylistic Origins" table from Proposal A is more informative in regards to the origin of the dance (Includes the "Ball de diables," but also especifies that the matter is part of "Auto Sacramental" origins); but it excludes the mention to the "Lama lama" (I don't know if it is a ritual, or if it is a dance; I don't think it was ever really explained).
- Next, the "Cultural Origins" of Proposal A is by far less controversial and, technically, more accurate than the one in Proposal B. While in Proposal B the dance is attributed origins in the 20th century, Proposal A attributes origins to the Viceroyalty era (17th-19th centuries). Moreover, Proposal B once again attributes origins that favor Bolivia above the rest.
- Third, I think that the instruments from Proposal A and Proposal B should be mixed somehow. Nowadays, the different Diabladas have different instruments from the original; hence why the article has a "regional variation" section.
- Fourth, I don't understand why the reference to Northwestern Argentina was removed. According to this Honduran newspaper, the Diablada is popular in northern Argentina (which means northwestern Argentina should be edited accordingly), Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru. However, it doesn't mention Chile (which is where the dance is also danced, in its northern part). Here's the newspaper: [16]. Here's some references on its reliability (seems to be reliable): [17].
- Fifth, the rest of the edits were obviously pro-Bolivian. However, I think that perhaps the infobox would need to be alphabetized (in order to keep a fair standard).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take into account your advise to avoid threaded discussions, so I'll answer directly to you Xav. And I think that the only way to explain the problem is by presenting the information directly in the article trying to be faithful to the sources and explain who says what. For me to hide that the UNESCO said with this words in the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity declaration "The traditional llama llama or diablada in worship of the Uru god Tiw became the main dance at the Carnival of Oruro." is not the right way. It can be contrasted and say that the Peruvian historian José Morales Serruto considers that the origins of the Diablada go back to 1576 in Juli, but not say "The origin of the Diablada is a matter of dispute." then take a side and say "The oldest Diablada recorded took place in 1576 with the native Lupakas people of Juli as an irrefutable fact using a source of a Peruvian newspaper which obviously will be biased while the UNESCO says that it has even older roots in Oruro because the Urus are the most ancient civilization in the Andes. And worst if there is another Peruvian historian Enrique Cuentas Ormachea who quoting a newspaper from Puno in February 2nd of 1918 says that was the day when the first Diablada was presented for the first time brought from Bolivia page 35. We have to remember that the version of José Morales Serruto appears only after the Miss Universe contest dispute while most studies, Bolivian, Peruvian, Chilean before this dispute consider the Diablada as a dance born in Oruro. I think we're not considering an important fact that many sources right now in the article are related to the Miss Universe dispute so the timing is not the most adequate, yet there are more sources from other years that could be more objective which aren't being considered. -- Erebedhel - Talk 02:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Xav, for the sake of not making things too complicated, I'll respond to each point in bullet format:
- The UNESCO talks about the Diablada being “traditional” and the “main dance” in the Carnaval de Oruro. However, it is not certifying that the origin of the dance is Bolivian, because the “Uru” (or “Uros”) people were displaced from Oruro to Lake Titicaca (Particularly into the modern-day Peruvian sector of the lake). Moreover, the UNESCO utterly fails in elaborating on the history of Uru peoples, or explaining anything in regards as to what happened to them. These people were invaded by the Aymaras and later the Incas; by the time the invasions were over, the “Uru” were nothing more than a mixture of Inca-Aymara (Historians and Anthropologists generally label them more with the Aymara, however) peoples with very few still retaining anything related to the original “Uru” traditions. Hence, when the Europeans came along with their “theatrical dance,” what they met was with Aymara natives that had taken some Uru traditions as a result of the mix with these people (They did not meet up with the Uru; which to this day live in the floating islands in the Titicaca and barely come out of there at all).
- As such, what it is highly illogical to impose the UNESCO statement regarding the “Uru tradition” above a specific date in which the “oldest” Diablada (which is the concept of the article) has been recorded.
- Obviously, if even here at WP we are arguing over the “origin of the Diablada,” and if two nations (Peru and Bolivia) have been arguing over the origin of the Diablada, then the origin of the dance is in dispute. By attempting to remove that statement, all I see is once again nationalist bias in favor of Bolivia.
- It's not a claim made by Serruto. There's also this Dr. Arbulu person that also makes mention of this event. There's a nice source in the Spanish WP regarding a Jesuit priest by the name of “Diego Gonzales Holguin” and a group of other Jesuits which did quite a historic and noble thing for their time. They settled in Juli, which according to the source was a route from where the natives were enslaved and sent to the mines in Peru and Bolivia, and made great efforts to “Christianize” the natives in order to help them prevent abuse by the Spaniards. They taught the natives Spanish, taught them of the Christian religion through the “Autos Sacramentales,” they taught them Spanish customs, and even had direct arguments with the Spanish authorities in order to end the Encomienda system that was mass-killing the natives. It's quite a good book to read really (IMO, it would even make for a good movie, but the Hollywood peeps barely take note of the non-English works): Check page 478.
- One thing is having “roots” in a dance, and the other is when the dance actually was first created (For instance, the “Cueca” is a dance that has roots in the “Zamacueca,” but it doesn't mean that the “Zamacueca” is when the first time the “Cueca” was created). In fact, perhaps the best place to mention the “llama llama” of the Uru would be in the first sentence of the article (to contrast it with the “Autos Sacramentales” of the Spaniards). However, the problem here is that Erebedhel associates Uru with Bolivia; when, as it has already been mentioned, the “Uru” peoples by this point and time had spread all the way to the Titicaca region (which is Peru-Bolivia). To make matters even funnier, the “Lupaka” peoples that allegedly first performed the Diablada live at the shores of the lake (so there's obviously a connection of traditions there).
- Ormachea updated his views in the following article, [18]. Ormachea mentions that a Peruvian group “Los Vaporinos” did a Bolivian-style Diablada in 1918, however the article also mentions that the Diablada was older than that (The Diablada didn't originate in Peru in “1918,” that the Vaporinos did that Bolivian-style dance is a different story not the origin): [19].
- I don't understand how old information regarding the Diablada can be more relevant than the updated information? Science is constantly updating itself, and the work done by Anthropologists and Historians is a type of science for it leaves a room for eventual corrections. The claim being made is that the new information is incorrect because it's in direct reference to the Miss Universe dispute; and that argument is really quite extreme. The “Miss Universe” contest dispute is what sparked new interest on the matter, but that doesn't mean that the new information is fake or incorrect.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Protecting the MedCab Page
← Hey, folks, I'm off to bed for tonight. Do you mind me protecting this page? Conversation tends to get out of control sometimes, and I'm back and it's ...ugh... so much to sift through :-)
Xavexgoem (
talk) 02:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok Xav, sweet dreams, I don't have any problem if you protect the page. We'll continue tomorrow. Bye and thank you for taking the case.-- Erebedhel - Talk 02:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Go right ahead. I have to dedicate some time tonight to research work as well (not a fun way to spend a Friday evening, but as long as I'm getting paid it's all good). However, I would like to provide a reply to Erebedhel's most recent statement; so, if you unblock the article at a later point and I haven't posted a reply yet, please don't think that I'm ignoring the statement. I'll post up my response tomorrow when you return. Have a good night.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
i'll have to temporarily suspend this for a day. after cleaning my keyboard, i lost functionality for both my shift keys, my forward slash key -- and with it my question mark -- and i can't navigate with the arrows. or make exclamation marks to show my rage at this turn of events. can't capit i's, either. probably be just a bit before i can get a new keyboard. and, oh hey, can't make four tildes. have to use the button at the top -- Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh it's ok Xav, I hope you can get a new keyboard soon. Meanwhile I'll be dedicating my time to read and work in other articles. -- Erebedhel - Talk 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- lol. Hence why I keep about 3 extra keyboards around (old, but still working). I'll postpone adding my comment as well then (as you said, we wouldn't want this to turn into a long discussion without you keeping control of it).-- MarshalN20 | Talk 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Balance between Peruvian and Bolivian versions?
Alright, I'm back. Where were we? Ah: balance. Is this article balanced between the Peruvian and Bolivian versions? Xavexgoem ( talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back Xav, good to have you back. Well I think that there isn't a balance. I think that the Bolivian version could not be even explained, besides on the Bolivian side there are at least two versions, one that says it comes from the Uru explaining that it was performed in the place where the city of Oruro is now which was considered a sacred place, which is the version that the UNESCO manages [20] I've found other sites where that theory is further explained maybe I could complement it with maps and diagrams. But other historians also think it comes from Potosí and later arrived to Oruro [21] that theory is also managed by a Peruvian author Nicomedes Santa Cruz [22] in page 285.
- Besides those are referring to the roots, most of the sources when describing the Diablada mention an ancient beginning, but then talk about the Diablada starting near the 20th century, Peru claims it's back from 1892 when the musical band Sikuris del Barrio Mañazo was created, Bolivia claims it's 1904 when Pedro Pablo Corrales formed a dance squad Gran Tradicional y Auténtica Diablada Oruro about that subject I think that the work of Enrique Cuentas Ormachea should be analyzed because in this article on page 35 he mentions that in 1918 in the Peruvian city of Puno, Pedro Pablo Corrales taught the dance to a squad named "Vaporinos" and that became the first Peruvian Diablada Squad, that later in the 1920's due to budget problems hired the Sikuris del Barrio Mañazo, but this year after the Miss Universe contest, he published an editorial [23] where he don't mention that, but also mentions that it was in the 1950s when the first mask workshops were opened in Peru because before that all the masks came from the Bolivian mask maker Antonio Vizcarra, and later in the 70s the first suit embroider shops were opened n Peru because also before that date all came from La Paz, Bolivia.
- I was thinking that maybe you're not too familiar with the Miss Universe dispute which I think is the reason why there is a dispute in the article. I consider that is not a relevant event but it does have a considerable weight in the article right now which is something I disagree, but perhaps you can understand the bottom of the problem with this article in the Wall Street journal about the dispute [24].-- Erebedhel - Talk 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. Marshall, would you please comment independent of Erebedhel's comment? Xavexgoem ( talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will, except for the last paragraph (which I have labeled off-topic). In regards to the first questin: Yes and no. The introduction is balanced, but the "History" and the "Regional Variations" sections are not balanced for they only present the Peruvian side of the story. However, this hasn't been because we (as in me, Lupos, and Dentren) prevented any addition into the history section. Erebedhele's main edits focused on the introduction, and those edits, as I have posted above, weren't considered to be NPOV. The only time, if I recall correctly, that Erebedhel edited the history section, he wrote this,
[25]. I would like to analyze and explain why I did not agree with this edit and once again considered it was being twisted to fit particular POVs:
- "that was written in Aymara simultaneously in four cities": Were the priests superheroes? How can they write all at the same time and at 4 different cities? I didn't know that there were cell phones back then...and, obviously, the source never states this.
- "were the figure of the archangel Micheal does not appear": This is a blatant overstatement that is, obviously, attempting to oppose the idea that the Diablada was created at this point (since the Diablada requires the participation of the archangel Michael; he is a central character of it). According to the Wikipedia article on this character, whose wikilink is on the quote of Erebedhele, "According to some Christian theologians, Saint Michael may appear in Scripture where his name is not mentioned. Examples of this include the cherub who stood at the gate of paradise, "to keep the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24)." Oh, and, zomg, the Spanish priests in Juli were Christian! zomg zomg zomg.
- The other statements were incorrectly standardized as if they all took place at the same time, but the source clearly states that the first presentation of an Aymara-written religious play was done in Juli.
- In regards to the "Regional Variations" section, I haven't done anything in regards to Oruro because I don't want to create any conflicts (or make the already on-going problem any worse). If that particular section hasn't been improved, it's most certainly not because anybody is trying promote any specific POV in favor of Peru.
- Off topic: Compare this 1776 picture of the dance,
[26], with a modern-day Diablada, and the most obvious thing is that it's essentially the same (the angel and a bunch of demons). The 8th paragraph of this source mentions how the Diablada of Puno is heavily influenced by the Aymaran "Danza de Anchanchu":
[27]. It would probably be good to present this as well as the "Uru proposal." Then there's also a source in the article by "Jiménez Borja" that speaks of how the dancers originally made their own masks before they turned to the Bolivian mask-maker, and then later to the Peruvian proffesional mask-makers.--
MarshalN20 |
Talk 14:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The snarkiness is maybe not the best approach, Marshal? As for the first bullet point, I immediately interpreted that not to mean at the exact same time. Perhaps what was meant was a shortish period of time?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I evaluated all of the possibilities that the statement could have made. I do not simply delete things just because I don't agree with them. I checked the source a couple (or maybe 3) times before I decided to remove that as non-factual. Garcilaso de la Vega, the author of the book, only writes about a play written in Aymara that is presented in Juli. Next, he goes on to speak about a recital done in Potosi, no longer under the context of a play written in Aymara, and so on. I'll try to be less sarcastic.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- The snarkiness is maybe not the best approach, Marshal? As for the first bullet point, I immediately interpreted that not to mean at the exact same time. Perhaps what was meant was a shortish period of time?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will, except for the last paragraph (which I have labeled off-topic). In regards to the first questin: Yes and no. The introduction is balanced, but the "History" and the "Regional Variations" sections are not balanced for they only present the Peruvian side of the story. However, this hasn't been because we (as in me, Lupos, and Dentren) prevented any addition into the history section. Erebedhele's main edits focused on the introduction, and those edits, as I have posted above, weren't considered to be NPOV. The only time, if I recall correctly, that Erebedhel edited the history section, he wrote this,
[25]. I would like to analyze and explain why I did not agree with this edit and once again considered it was being twisted to fit particular POVs:
Ignorant Bolivians
Morales propaganda
Dead Bolivians
Marshal, if I ever hear a complaint about someone else's "POV edit" again, I'm closing this mediation.
Are we clear? Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Stay cool: Talk page ≠ Article. That's clear enough.
- The definition of propaganda, [28]. That's clear enough.
- Also, the comments are opinions in response to the opinions of the other contributor (Who passed himself off as different people), which in the end turned out to be a user by the name of "RBCM." Did my opinions ever get into the article? No. All of the "delicate" information that needs sourcing in the article has appropiate sourcing, with neither my personal POV in it or overstatements (or " hyperbole." The definitions are close, but I think the word I used first is more correct). Is this clear?
- I already had a talk with admin User:BozMo ( [29]), and some other lads, about those comments. It ended in a warning for me to no longer do that in the talk page, and I have been faithful to that thus far. Is this clear?
- Finally, please don't threaten me. I honestly expected polite treatment, but if you want to use threats rather than ask nicely, don't expect me to curl in the corner in fear. I will continue to speak about POV edits done to the article (if the need arises), and if you want to close the mediation because of my complaint about the POV edits done to the article--rather, if you want use that as an excuse to close this MedCab--then you can go ahead do so right now. After all, I'm not the one who decides what goes on in this MedCab. I hope this is all clear.
- Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)