User talk:Tbsdy lives/Erebedhel and MarshalN20

The following is an attempt at mediation from between Erebedhel and MarshalN20. Both editors have specific viewpoints about a variety of articles, and each has a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there have been clashes between the two and I will be attempting to mediate to allow for more constructive editing.

I will only mediate under the following conditions:
 * Both parties must not make any personal comments about the other. If one party makes a comment that the other finds offensive, all editing should stop until the matter is resolved.
 * Neither party should remove the other's references, and instead they should take it to the talk page in question and shall state their concerns over the source and reference provided. Discussion of the source will be had there and I will try to make an impartial judgement on the matter. Other editors may also wish to make comment, and they should be similarly respected.
 * Both parties should make a good faith attempt to write from the other party's viewpoint.
 * Any points that are disputed should not be reverted - there will be a strict 0RR policy on the pages being mediated on. As the mediator, I will go to considerable effort to ensure that discussion is had about contentious material and ensure that neither party has any advantage over the other in terms of good faith attempts at editing the article.

Participants have some rights.


 * At any time, they may ask for another mediator.
 * At any time, either party can withdraw from mediation, however should they do this they will need to find a way of resolving their differences amicably and with as little drama as possible.

Do the participants agree to the above? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree:  Erebedhel  -  Talk  17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Where should we start? I think we should address each point in order to avoid deviating the dialogue much from the main issue.
 * Sure.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of articles
Thanks folks. Can I get a list of articles that you are both trying to edit? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Diablada (main issue) and Morenada (minor issue). I'm really not trying to "work on" the Morenada article; it was simply a "pet project" which I was just planning on adding some sourced material and leave it at that until a later time. However, Ereb deleted my sourced material without any good reason. Such edits are completely unethical.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the articles that I had the intention to expand further are:
 * Diablada
 * Morenada
 * Caporales
 * Llamerada
 * Ekeko
 * Tobas (dance)
 * Kullawada
 * Chacarera
 * Afro-Bolivian Saya
 * and others under the Category:Bolivian culture
 * I'd like to also take a look on Ceviche, Potato, Latin American cuisine and South American cuisine just correct some minor details with the sources.


 * I'll abstain to make any personal remarks or respond to MarshalN20's comments, but I should point out that if this were a user conduct case it'd be evident that I'm not the "unethical" one.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Folks, I think all this talk about the ethics of the edits is unhelpful. Can we focus on the problems you have with the article? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, best to focus on the material. I have no current problem with the Diablada article itself except that it needs expansion (I have done some work on it on my sandbox, but have been unable to implement it into the article due to the current dispute); however, I do not agree with the material that Ereb's proposal from his workshop. For one thing, we should evaluate the introductions of both articles and decide which one is better (or take bits and pieces from both). With the exception of a "citation needed" tag for a statement regarding of the modern Bolivian Diablada (which I'm sure Ereb can easily provide), I believe that my introduction is the best fit for the article. There are certain reasons I do not agree with Ereb's proposal; I'd like to elaborate more on this, with your permission.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Diablada
OK, so let's see if we can work out a resolution to the Diablada article. Can each of you tell me your concerns?

Let's start with the lead section, which I believe is disputed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will begin by stating that I believe that my lead section is much better and should be the standard to use. That decision is up to you to decide, Tbsdy (I will accept your decision either way, as long as the choice is reasonable).
 * 1. In the first paragraph of Ereb's lead, where is the exact reference (statement) that states that Julia Elena Fortun is the inventor of the term "Danza de Diablos"? Also, I do not think there is a need to mention Fortun in the lead section; she should be mentioned in the body of the article (not the introduction).
 * 2. The second paragraph. His first sentence is good. However, the second sentence seems to be original research (WP:OR); from where is such an exceptional claim referenced? The third sentence is based on the second sentence, and it is also not necessary in the lead; it should go on a section named "Controversies" (or something of that sort) as I have in my sandbox.
 * 3. Third paragraph. The first sentence is unsourced and is an exceptional claim. The second sentence is OK. What follows is Bolivian POV; the lead should be neutral. Compare that with my explanation of the matter; then tell me which one is more neutral.
 * 4. Fourth paragraph. First sentence is unsourced and anti-Peruvian as seen in this excerpt from it, "other theories and studies were promoted to contradict the Bolivian version." The "Bolivian version" is not the established version; it's just one theory among many others. The second sentence attributes a claim specifically to Morales Serruto; however, this claim is also made by historians Cuentas Ormachea and Ricardo Arbulu (Phd.) (I'm not sure how to reference this in the article, could you help me out here Tbsdy? Type in "Presencia de Puno en la cultura popular" in the search box of the PDF file in order to find the information (It's in Spanish; maybe you can use dictionary.com's translator?). Added that specific names of people are really not needed for the different theories  (that's what thin the leade body is for: to expand). The last sentence is good.
 * 5. What is a Diablada? This is a question central to this discussion. It seems that me and Ereb have a different perspective on what the Diablada is exactly. However, I'll reserve my response to this question (I'd rather like for you to ask it in a separate sub-section, Tbsdy).
 * Well, these are all my arguments against Ereb's proposal. Like I stated, the only problem with my lead is that there is a "citation needed" tag in just one sentence. The rest of my lead seems to me to be the most appropiate neutral introduction to the article.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all I explained before that my workshop wasn't a final version as it says in the warning above, I just collected some information and wrote it there. Usually on academic texts the abstract is written at the end when the complete work is finished so the author has a more clear idea of the outline of the article. Actually as I believe I tried to explain to MarshalN20 before is that what's in User:Erebedhel/Workshop was mostly notes and basically my lead are annotations on what's wrong with the current lead I'm not sure if it'd be productive to debate against my lead when I don't even have the intention to put it there either.


 * However, I consider that the lead should be like this:

The Diablada is a typical South American dance originated in the Andean Altiplano, characterized by the mask and devil suit wore by the dancers.

The origins and sense of patrimonial identity of this dance is a matter of dispute between authorities and historians of Bolivia, Chile and Peru.

In Bolivia, it's considered to have roots in the ancient Uru dance of the llama llama in worship of the Uru god Tiw that used to take place in the ancient location where the modern city of Oruro is nowadays, during colonial times it was mixed with Spanish influence and during the Bolivian war of independence acquired more relationship with the Carnival of Oruro, and in 1904 the choreographer Pedro Pablo Corrales with his dance squad Gran Tradicional y Auténtica Diablada Oruro became, according to Bolivian officials, the first institutionalized squad of the modern Diablada. Bolivian historians and cultural organizations consider that it was then expanded to Peru in 1918 and Chile in 1959.

Chilean historians coincide to determine that the birthplace of the Diablada is the city of Oruro and the dance brought in 1959, however since this dance is an important part of the Fiesta de la Tirana in northern Chile it's considered part of their cultural heritage for sharing a common ancestry.

In Peru, the birthplace of the dance is considered a product of the catechizing labour of the Jesuits in the Peruvian city of Juli back in the year 1576 when the autos sacramentales were first taught to the Aymaran kingdom of the Lupacas, native inhabitants of the region. Later, the creation of the modern Diablada is considered by Peru to be in 1892 with the formation the Sikuris del barrio mañazo.


 * Something like that, that's just a draft but I consider important to delimit the theories and also the wording that belongs to each theory. For example Autos sacramentales belong to the Peruvian version because Julia Elena Fortún, the author of la danza de los diablos and the one who suggested the relationship of this dance with the Ball de diables, says on page 24 that she didn't find evidence of mentions to the devil in the Autos sacramentales she reviewed. So using the wording "autos sacramentales" for the 3 points of view would be inaccurate, that's also why I wrote that note on who used the terminology of "danza de diablos" (devils dance) because in her book she wanted to emphasize her discovery translating Ball de diables literally into Spanish, I consider this important to clarify because the Diablada is a specific dance of the Andes, and using this generic term of Devil's dance leaves the door open to assume that any dance with devils is a Diablada which would make the scope of the article change completely.


 * My specific observations about the current lead are:
 * The first sentence, starts stating the Peruvian interpretation already.
 * Second sentence, even though this time shows both theories is mixed is hard to understand when both things are in the same paragraph. However the name Danza del Anchanchu is not a widespread term, as the source says this name was only a suggestion of the mask maker Edwin Loza Huarachi during an interview with the author of that article, on the other hand Llama llama is a 2000 year old ritual registered by the UNESCO while Danza del Anchanchu is a comment I think it's a big issue of WP:UNDUE.
 * The following sentence represents a problem with order that MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus introduced, always changing the order "Bolivia-Chile-Peru" to "Peru-Chile-Bolivia"  perhaps this issue should be expanded but there is a reason why the 'Diablada is considered first Bolivian then from other parts:
 * It's in the definition itself of the word
 * It's recognized by the UNESCO in its declaration of the Carnaval de Oruro as one of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity  MarshalN20 doesn't believe it but it's further explained in the 107 pages study approved by UNESCO in 2001.
 * The PhD in religious studies and Executive Director of the Wisconsin Humanities Council at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Max Harris says it's highly linked to the Bolivian Independence war and it's a Bolivian national symbol
 * It's also backed by the Board of Ball de Diables in Tarragona, Spain and it's supported by the Australian scholar Jennifer Heath
 * Outside Peru or before 2003 there is absolutely no literature claiming the Diablada as Peruvian, it's only a fringe theory pushed by cultural organizations to attract tourism in Puno, that's why only promotional sites and few articles mention that. The article MarshalN20 mentions above is a clear copy of this 1986 article of Enrique Cuentas Ormachea (peruvian historian) where he mentions that the Diablada was brought from Bolivia to Peru for the first time in 1918.
 * At the end of that paragraph it says "However, other variations of the dance are also practiced in Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama, and in various parts of Peru." this is an aftermath of this discussion about the definition of the Diablada, in Latin America there are several dances with the Devil and this claim is based in the idea that the Diablada is any dance with devils, while real studies consider these dances as inspired by the Catalonian Ball de diables not the Diablada. And in a Hodurean newspaper written during the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis (link dead but MarshalN20 used it often as source) says "Peruvian scholars say that this dance was also dances in Venezuela Ecuador Argentina..etc" this claim requires attribution, and yes I know MarshalN20 found some articles referring a Diablada pillareña in Ecuador but those newspaper articles does not stablish any link with this dance, describe it or provide any information in order to consider it the same subject, establishing this link within the article would constitute original synthesis. It should only be in a disambiguation page.
 * Continuing below in the second paragraph it says "The origin of the Diablada is a matter of dispute." but right after takes a side saying "The oldest Diablada recorded took place in 1576 with the native Lupakas people of Juli, a city nicknamed as the "Aymaran Rome" which is located near Lake Titicaca in the altiplano of present-day Puno, Peru;" and below the theory taht is product of a 10 year study by the UNESCO is reduced to "Another proposal is that the dance originated in Oruro, and that it has Uru roots from the religious ritual of the "Ito Festival"." as a very random theory.
 * Below continues only saying "Aymara" which are identified with only the Peruvian theory and confirms this view "Ultimately, the result was a fusion between Spanish and Aymaran culture in the altiplano as the original dance taught by the Jesuit missionaries adopted Andean elements." again this is repeated in the beginning of the next paragraph "The Diablada represents a mixture between Christianity and Aymara religion"
 * Then ends the lead with "Over the years, the Diablada has developed uniquely in various regions of South America, which has led to variations such as the Afro-Peruvian Son de los Diablos, the Diablada Puneña, and the Diablada of Oruro.[" again leaving Bolivia to the end, and mentioning the Afro-Peruvian Son de los Diablos first, what's the problem with it. that among all the literature about the subject the only mention of a relationship between the Diablada and the Son de los Diablos is this book where it says on page 52 "Maybe our (meaning Peruvian) Son de diablos has a very slight similitude with the Diabladas of Oruro (Bolivia)." (notice that the Peruvian Author Nicomedes Santa Cruz also considers that the Diablada is from Oruro Bolivia) I consider is a very small reference to not only assume the Son de Diablos as a Diablada in the lead but also to dedicate it a full section instead of making a link in "See also" to it.


 * I consider that overall the present lead lacks of structure is very "howevered" and unnecessarily repeats wording and concepts associated with the Peruvian theory.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  05:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One comment: The following snippet view from a book (by Julio Arosemena Moreno, page 34) states, "The derivation of the devil dances {Danza de diablos} or Diabladas forms a controversial theme in Iberoamerica {Iberian peninsula, Latin America}. In actuality two thesis exist in regards to the rise of the devil dances. [...] The majority of authors affirm that they procede from the Autos Sacramentales of the Middle Ages [...]." This comes from a secondary source. Julio Arosemena Moreno, the author, is from Panama. So it's not so much as a "Peruvian claim" (Fortun's view seems to be the minority, according to this source).-- MarshalN20  | T a l k 06:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another: This source states that the Diablada of Oruro is related to an Auto Sacramental . This Bolivian source also states that the majority view is that the Diablada is derived from the Autos Sacramentales . We can add these sources to the first sentence. Sadly, it seems Ms. Fortun's view of the "Ball de Diables" is a minority opinion.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Phd Julia Elena Fortún is a well respected historian and etnomusicologist, she's quoted in most studies regarding this topic in several countries and languages, practically there is no serious study where she isn't mentioned, she's considered an authority on the subject and received many awards for precisely these studies, it'd be an insult to her over 50 years of career to become a minoritarian view because some people didn't read her book. I know that some websites and books use that wording but it's inaccurate and I'm just pointing that out.
 * However I was going to suggest a procedure to ease the debate, and I think that it'd be better to address each issue with "MarshalN20's statement" "Erebedhel's statement" then wait till Tbsdy analyse them comment them and if it's a short issue we can work together in a solution if it has ramifications we separate it in parts and again prepare our statements and solve it issue by issue, avoiding threaded discussions that will take everybody's time without solutions.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  06:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you hold much appreciation for the work of Ms. Fortun (You even created her a page), but sadly the sources I have provided completely state otherwise. This is no original research from my part: The sources state what they state, the Autos Sacramentales theory is the majority view (Not a simple "Peruvian claim"). However, since Ms. Fortun is so notable on the subject, her minority view is still important to mention (however, more weight has to be given to the majority view). I'm sorry Ereb if that hurts your feelings, but please don't insult other authors by stating that they need to read Ms. Fortun's book in order to know what they are talking about.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 07:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I requested this threaded discussion to stop, MarshalN20 apparently find it amusing to argue in this mockingly way but I find it extremely displeasing. My argument holds still Fortún is widely quoted in all the literature about this subject and anyone who would have spend some time reading about it would confirm that, honestly I'm surprised that MarshalN20 makes such a claim now, is like saying that Zahi Hawass is a minoritarian view on Egyptian culture. It's not about personal feelings it's the product of studying the subject and know the precise contributions of each author about the subject, in every science there are the main authors who proposed important ideas and created trends and the other scholars who wrote compilations of those investigations, apparently MarshalN20 didn't study in depth this subject and is trying to pick a fight on a very tangential matter, it's hard to have an intellectual discussion if the other mocks about your efforts researching in such way.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  07:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you get so emotional about these things? I'm not "mocking" you and please leave out your personal emotions. You seem to think that what constitutes as minority/majority are the people arguing for the side, not how many support it or what sources specifically state. The sources I have provided specifically state that the "Autos Sacramentales" theory is the majority view. I can bring out the flying spaghetti monster to back up my claim, but that's not going to constitute a majority. For a majority to be a majority, it requires an actual majority (ex. 8 > 1). In Wikipedia, it requires sources stating it is the majority (in order to avoid original research); I have provided 3 sources on the matter. Please understand this.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Tbsdy, please (please please) tell Ereb to leave out his emotions in this discussion. Whenever things are not going the way he wants them, he always brings out these claims that I'm insulting him or making fun of him. Please stop this now Tbsdy; I am not doing anything wrong and I am tired of this user always trying to act like a victim when there has been no insults.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, he is personally attacking me (twice!). He states: "MarshalN20 didn't study in depth this subject." I find this deeply insulting to my knowledge. He then adds: "is trying to pick a fight." I also find this to be a personal attack on me as I am not trying to "pick a fight" (This is not some kind of boxing match). Please Tbsdy stop these personal attacks from Ereb.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough, I requested to please stop claiming it's "my emotions" in a moclingly way and you continued this ends now. no more personal comments this ends now.  Erebedhel   -  Talk  08:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add this source from Time Magazine . It agrees with the "Autos Sacramentales" theory as well. Also, please put yourself together; there can be no good discussion if you're going to keep putting up this little act of the "insulted one" when I have not insulted you at all and when it is in fact you the one who keeps insulting me.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 08:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources quoting Julia Elena Fortún that are already on the article:


 * I just made a suggestion to avoid this threaded discussions because they aren't productive you're provoking me, you were the one who started sayig it's my emotions then making personal remarks. I want to keep this strictly intellectual but you're recurring to this low methods. I'll ignore your next comments as they will continue being a provocation.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  08:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides what I'm against of is the point of this discussion, I feel it's arguing for arguing. When one is arguing would search on Google sources to back his claims and I know you'll find endlessly sources to back your claims, a Google search of "Autos sacramentales Diablada" returns 3460 links a search for "Ball de diables Diablada" returns 6410 links. My general point and only point was that the wording "autos sacramentales" is not commonly accepted. This fight is pointless to me and it turned offensive without reason.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  09:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * None of those sources state that Fortun's proposal is the majority theory. All of those sources are all about the same person: They're all about Fortun. They're all about the same author. You need to find more than one author to cite. However, on the other hand, the "Auto Sacramentales" theory has been declared as a majority theory twice and has been supported by different people.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 09:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have found all of those search results, then you should have no problem finding information that backs up your first point. That is, unless your argument is not valid.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 09:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what you wrote: "For example Autos sacramentales belong to the Peruvian version [...]." And I have thus far proven you are incorrect. The "Autos Sacramentales" theory is the majority view on the subject and supported by a wide variety of authors and researchers (including Peruvian, Panamenian, and Bolivian).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 09:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on methodology
Based on the threaded discussion above I'd like to recommend the following procedure to ease everybody's job.


 * Identify a topic
 * Discuss it placing "Statement by MarshalN20" then "Statement by Erebedhel"
 * Then avoid making any more comments till Tbsdy review our statements make suggestions or comments them, then we all work on a solution.
 * If there are ramifications on the topic then separate them in parts and start again with the same procedure.

I sadly feel MarshalN20 sometimes has a ...need to fight with someone and usually I'm the target, first of all tonight wasn't really the best time to spend hours searching for sources, I had to attend other matters and I can't waste my time attending a tangential matter, specially because if one pretends to be serious on an academic article searching sources doesn't only requires Googling it but also reading them, even if you read them before you have to find the exact phrase and it's a time consuming task and in this case is a pointless task, because as it can be seen in MarshalN20's last comment when a discussion ends he picks another thing to fight, not only that but he stays with that need and goes to continue more fights elsewhere. This only creates a tense environment and often discussions get to a point where they aren't constructive anymore.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  10:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tbsdy has clearly asked to focus on the material. However, you keep personally attacking me instead of focusing on the content. I have provided sources that demonstrate a particular point, and instead there have only been insults and emotional fits in response. If you consider this situation a "tangential matter," then perhaps you should have focused your time on more important matters. If we are at this point of the dispute-resolution process it is because you have pushed it here thus far, and it is extremely annoying now to be told that you feel the discussion is merely "tangential." Tbsdy, this discussion cannot continue if the other editor is refusing to either accept my sources do prove that the "Autos Sacramentales" theory is the majority view or provide a counter-argument with equally specific sources; and if I have done anything wrong or "insulting" then I would really like to know because thus far I do not see myself doing anything deserving of all these personal attacks from Ereb.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPANPA I just asked this conversation to stop because it isn't materializing in a real content issue. My logic is applicable in every science, I specifically told you that I won't pursue a quest to look for "weasely" written articles to argue about something that I don't consider relevant at this point and I find it offensive that you mock about my arguments claiming several times it's "my emotions" you're ridiculizing me and I'll not accept it. Besides please don't canvass.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that there hasn't been any personal insults thus far - at least until both of you saw insults that weren't there :-) Let's end this and continue to focus on the material. I have to say that I think that Erebedhel's suggestion to keep each issue in it's own section would actually be helpful for myself, because I have no expertise in this area whatsoever. However, I think that a threaded discussion would still be better. If either party wants to add their ideas into another section, or as a response to the identified issue, that would be fine also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Existing Lead Discussion (Table Comp.)
(deindent) Folks, let's stop right here. Erebedhel, I have to say that I don't think that MarshalN20 wasn't being insulting here. He was stating that his sources differ from your own. I don't believe that he was mocking you.

Marshal, Erebedhel's lead isn't finished, but I think that it looks like he's willing to take on board your comments.

My take so far is that:
 * On the existing lead, the first paragraph is reasonable and states what the Diablada is. As this is the first I've ever heard of it, I was impressed that it clearly defined the subject. However, Erebedhel's lead gives the English translation, which is very useful.
 * Erebedhel's first sentence is not as clear, mainly because it uses a large aside before it defines the topic.
 * Erebedhel's second paragraph looks to make some fairly important claims, could this not be incorporated into the second paragraph of the lead? What are the concerns?
 * There appears to be a great deal of controversy over the origins of the dance. Rather than discuss it in detail in the lead (that is not the function of a lead section) then it really should be discussed in more detail in the main article. Much of the material that Erebedhel has is well sourced, but too detailed for the lead. Could we not make a greater emphasis in the lead that the origin is disputed and that the governments of Peru and Chile are involved in the dispute, and leave the more detailed discussion later in the article?

What are both of your opinions on this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What lead are we talking about? my workshop or the more general lead I suggested above ? I suppose it's the workshop, anyway perhaps we should evaluate paragraph by paragraph, my first paragraph was just an annotation but the current paragraph is more thoroughly explained, I explained above my observations about it, perhaps as I said there like when one writes the abstract of an article one has a more clear idea of the outline once is finished, so maybe we can work on a general lead then after the process is over or more advanced give it a second look, I say this because when we get to the History section the several currents of thought and points of view would me more evident, I have developed that part more here. I'll suggest some changes in the first paragraph and we can compare them:




 * It's just a suggestion based on my observations above it address most of my points I will think about it and think if it's well written later right now I'm tired. But perhaps below the lead could be abridged and be more general instead of developing each POV I'm still trying to figure out how to define the controversy because the dispute Bolivia-Peru is about the origins but the dispute Bolivia-Chile is about the cultural heritage so it requires a different scope, apparently Cultural Heritage seems to be a science itself, I have many articles and the website of Diego Echevers Tórrez who is professor of ethnomusicology and cultural heritage and describes the topic differently but I'm not sure how to describe it well yet.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, well done Erebedhel - that is very clear now! I compliment you on your excellent use of the table - that's very helpful :-) So looking at the differences, I see that you have added info that it is "characterized by the mask and devil suit wore by the dancers" (good info) but you have removed "as a result of the introduction of the Autos Sacramentales, a dramatic representation of the mystery of the Eucharist, in the Viceroyalty of Peru by missionaries from Spain in the XVI century" and noted the influence of Autos Sacramentales later on in the paragraph.


 * What was the reasoning for this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes well partly was exposed in the discussion above, it's because there isn't consensus among historians whether if it is product of the introduction of the Autos sacramentales or influenced by the Ball de diables or the year where this happened some authors say it was in 1538 others in 1576 and others in 1818 so saying it was in the exclusively XVI century and by the autos sacramentales wouldn't be neutral I consider it'd be better to make a wider reference then in the history section explain further each theory.  Erebedhel   -  Talk  04:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, that sounds reasonable to me. Marshal, do you have any comment on this? I'd like to hear both sides. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm impressed by that table. Congratulations Ereb for that fine work. I hope you do not mind if I use it for my comparisson: That's about it for my proposal.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the opinion of Ereb, here I provide two sources (one from Panama and the other from Bolivia) that directly state that there is a majority consensus regarding the origin of the Diablada in direct relation to the Autos Sacramentales: and . This source from Time Magazine (which a good friend provided me), in English, explains the connection between the Autos Sacramentales and the dance: . However, it is still important to mention the minority view (the "Ball de Diables" theory) in the body of the article.
 * Another key problem here is that Ereb does not agree that the Diablada is also an important part of the cultural festivities of Ecuador and Argentina. In Argentina the Diablada is also danced, and in Ecuador there is also a Diablada danced in the city of Pillaro (Diablada pillareña).
 * In regards to the "XVI century" statement, I think it is obvious that 1538 and 1576 are in the 16th century. The "1818" source provided by Ereb does not make any statement whatsoever in regards to that being the date when the Diablada was first formed; it only speaks of Montealegre's moral tale in terms of that it "seems [...] to have furnished an eduring public transcript for the Devils" in Oruro. To attempt to make that statement into "the dance was formed in 1818" is misinterpreting and distorting the material.
 * In regards to the "XVI century" statement, I think it is obvious that 1538 and 1576 are in the 16th century. The "1818" source provided by Ereb does not make any statement whatsoever in regards to that being the date when the Diablada was first formed; it only speaks of Montealegre's moral tale in terms of that it "seems [...] to have furnished an eduring public transcript for the Devils" in Oruro. To attempt to make that statement into "the dance was formed in 1818" is misinterpreting and distorting the material.


 * Fair enough, I think MarshalN20 expressed his opinion I expressed mine, based on MarshalN20's bulleted opinions we can make a debate separating these points in 3 or 4 issues addressing one by one:  Erebedhel  -  Talk  21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 - Autos sacramentales/Ball de diables Notability
Main point of debate: Is it neutral to only make mention to the Autos Sacramentales in the lead?

In MarshalN20's proposal there is no mention of the Ball de diables because in these sources say the following :

The derivation of the devil dances or Diabladas constitute a topic of controversy in Ibero-America. Nowadays there are two theses about the emergence of the devil dances.

The motive of the criterion divergence is based on the descent of the dance. Most authors affirm that it proceeds from the Autos Sacramentales of the Middle Ages which were represented in the atriums of the churches, where the presence of the speeches and other features identify it as an auto sacramental...

Notice that in the introduction the author says "Nowadays there are two theses..." and the snippet view doesn't allow to read the second one, but here it contains evidence that below in the same page he speaks about the ''Ball de diables".

On the second link the text is the following :

Regardless that in this order most authors agree in its derivation of a peninsular Auto Sacramental I consider that is a little bit risky to consi...

...a devils dance which characters are the same as in our Andean Diablada.

Using the documents exhumed by Amadés in relationship to the Ball de diables'....

I consider that MarshalN20 is extrapolating this information a little, and is not a substantial reason to eliminate the information regarding the Ball de diables of the lead and give it a treatment of fringe theory based on those links for the following reasons:


 * 1) I'm abstaining to engage a debate about which theory is "the best" or "the most" because that's not the purpose of Wikipedia, theories have to speak by themselves and the article is meant to provide the information so the reader take their own conclusions, I'd be against determining a "best theory" between two theories that aren't fringe and are under the criterion of notability, and intentionally create a bias in the article defending that theory, that goes against Wikipedia policy.
 * 2) The phrase "Most authors say this..." is a weasel phrase and I consider doesn't really go deep into the subject, the theory of the Ball de diables is also present in a significant part of the Diablada literature

For example in the following book about the Diablada puneña written by the Peruvian author Ignacio Frisancho Pineda it says "the always mentioned Ball de diables from Catalonia in Spain in that case we should always mention the Ball de diables and the Autos sacramentales would become a inexistent theory, weasel wording is present in many places but it can't be extrapolated in that way.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're doing consitutes as Original Research. We are not conducting our own personal research into the matter; we're simply presenting the information researchers have published (or, in some cases, use primary sources in order to present their exact information without making any conclusions). If something is "always mentioned," it means that it is important to mention in the body of the article. However, none of your sources present the same argument that two of my sources state in exact words: There is a majority consensus in favor of the Autos Sacramentales theory. Where is such a claim made for Fortun's Ball de Diables theory?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide the text I wrote which constitutes OR? Under your criterion, those texts doesn't say "Fortún's theory is a fringe theory and shouldn't be in any Wikipedia article because we say so" either so assuming that would be also Original Research. Is like I'd throw this link and go to the Cat article and put "cats are better than dogs" I'm against POV-Googling and I won't do it when the purpose of the discussion is not acceptable under Wikipedia principles, we can't engage a contest to see what theory is the best and then introduce a bias in the article based on that that'd be completely incorrect.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are, once again, not understanding the matter at hand. I have not said that Fortun's information should not be in Wikipedia. This is not a contest about which "theory is the best" (You're making up this in your mind). My sources clearly state that there is a majority consensus for the Autos Sacramentales theory. However, you are attempting to place the Ball de Diables theory on the level of the other theory based on your original research. That is not acceptable, please understand.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked you to please show me the text where I introduced Original research, it just says "or the Catalonian Ball de Diables" how is that original research? I think we should be easy on the accusations they won't give you more reason. Besides in "Danzas folklóricas de la villa de los Santos" the author does put it next to the theory of Autos Sacramentales and in the second link in Khana, the author also has his doubts about it, in the fragment he says "I consider that is a little bit risky to consi..." and also in the same page 1007 next to autos sacramentales then he continues explaining further the theory of the ball de diables, I seriously think we're extrapolating much that information while it's proved that both authors also spoke about the ball de diables in the same context, based on only that we can't qualify the Ball de diables as a fringe theory, I believe I presented several texts where they are mentioned there is the Board of Ball de diables in Spain backing that information, your request goes against neutrality and it can't be acceptable.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You continue to avoid the focus of the argument. Two of the sources directly state that the majority consensus on the subject is towards the Autos Sacramentales theory. Thus far you have not provided any source contradicting this or supporting the Ball de Diables theory as having such a consensus. The only thing you have done at this point is continue to base your argument on original research; I cannot provide you with a specific text because your whole argument is based on original research.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, here is the full text in Frisancho's quote you provide: ...the always mentioned Ball de diables from Catalonia in Spain. But it is at the start of the arrival of the Spanish missionaries to America, where, very especially, the natives of Peru's southern Andes, nearly everything they expressed in music, dances and songs, that some dances begin to appear.... Once more, based on that few amount of text it is shown that the missionaries from Spain (the one which other sources attribute as the introductors of the Autos Sacramentales) are what cause the new dances to appear.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I proved you that the exact same sources you provided mentioned the Ball de diables next to it, I'll not satisfy your request to go look for a text saying what you want me to say because it's against the purpose of Wikipedia, in your second paragraph what you're doing is original research stop accusing me of something when all I did was write "or the Catalonian Ball de Diables" I think I provided evidence enough to prove that it's a very plausible theory mentioned in many texts including those you want to use to impose a ban on it.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I already explained the matter, provided the sources, and asked for a response with equally strong sources. I have never made any mention whatsoever of banning texts. You are once again taking things emotionally, particularly demonstrated by the unnecessary bolding of a sentence. I refuse to continue discussing this matter until you calm down, understand what is original research, and focus on the topic at hand.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I proved that your sources do the same thing I'm suggesting. You're playing the "emotional" and the "original research" card because you're refusing to accept that your suggestion will never pass the neutrality test and you're refusing to understand the point. This discussion will remain in stale until Tbsdy reviews it.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  02:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 - Location
Main point of debate: What countries should be mentioned in the lead?

MarshalN20 considers that Ecuador and Argentina should be added to the list providing the following link:

The Ministry of Cultures of Bolivia clarified that 'the Diablada' is one of the most important icons of the Canival of Oruro, declared as Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity by the UNESCO in 2001. Meanwhile, Peruvian analysts say that 'the Diablada' is for centuries a cultural manifestation shared y Peru and Bolivia in the altiplanic zone in the border and that it can be even observed also in the north of Argentina and even in Ecuador.

It's visible in the text that those who say that it's danced in those other countries are the "Peruvian analysts" so adding that phrase without attribution wouldn't be neutral either. (On a side note, I should point out that mr. Ernesto Justiniano is a blogger, a very dedicated and organized one but a blogger who copy news in his blog from other websites).

Regarding the Diablada pillareña I'm afraid that among the sources MarshalN20 compiled other than being an homonym there isn't a established link between that particular dance and the topic of this article, establishing that link within the article would constitute original synthesis.

Moreover, what should be the criterion of inclusion to the list of countries where it's danced? One thing is which countries really dispute the origin of the dance and the countries where the dance was imported. For example the Diablada is performed since 2003 in Austria and for over 11 years in USA.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Diablada pillareña is a Diablada (It's in the name itself!). You are stating that I'm creating links when the information I have provided (and which can also be found in my sandbox ) clearly explains that the Diablada pillareña was also created by the mixture between the Spanish and Native American culture; there is even a government declaration (From Ecuador) that presents its two most established theories: One which is that the dance and celebration is influenced by other neighboring nations with the coming of their immigrants during colonial times, and the other which is that the dance developed as a sort of courtship ritual and community rivalry in later centuries. Either way, the dance is a Diablada. Do you have a source which states otherwise?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's original research. on the other hand. The burden of getting sources relies in the one who wants to make a claim in your case you want to say that the Diablada Pillareña is related to the Diablada of Oruro-Puno-Tirana if you want to introduce that text you have the responsibility to search for sources that say "The Diablada Pillareña is related to the Diablada of Oruro-Puno-Tirana" is not my responsibility to search the sources for you.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. My claim is that the Diablada pillareña is a Diablada. Whether it is actually "related" to the Diabladas in the Altiplano is not the purpose. I have already provided evidence that there exists a Diablada in Ecuador, and that the dance is a Diablada (based on the mixture between Native American and Spanish culture and religion).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My observation is related to the logistic of it, there isn't any information regarding a "General Diablada", if in the lead we introduce the text "it's danced in Ecuador where it's known as Diablada pillareña" we'd be already establishing that link ourselves and relating it de facto without further evidence. I think that the article should be only about the Andean Diablada which is the topic of this article so far, and offer a disambiguation page, after all the Diablada pillareña has already its own article.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  01:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not creating links. The title of the article is "Diablada." In Ecuador the dance is called "Diablada pillareña." Pillaro is a city in the Andes. This article further serves as evidence that Pillaro's Diablada is also a mixture between Christianity and native culture: . However, Ecuador does not claim sole ownership of the "Diablada" dance (unlike Bolivia), and the articles I have presented also do not make a specific claim of origin to the Diablada dance (which means the claim that the Diablada was created in the Altiplano is not challenged). These Diablada pillareña articles only present the approximate date in which the Diablada pillareña is created; and this article from Ecuador's government is the one that establishes a connection between Ecuador's Diablada and the dances of neighboring Andean communities: . Deleting such information because it simply does not agree with your personal definition of a Diablada is completely incorrect.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes we are, you're not understanding my point the Diablada pillareña is a homonym unless there is a study establishing a link. That's why there are disambiguation pages putting it would represent to change the topic completely and stablish links that doesn't exist. The link you provided doesn't say such a thing actually it says:




 * Other than the devils, in the Diablada which is the topic in the article, there are no line couples, guarachas, capariches, sanjuanitos, saltashpas, cabecillas or even a broom. It's a completely different dance.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  02:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That Choreography section is completely unreferenced and was put there by me as a translation from the one in the Spanish wiki. I am assuming that such is the choreography of the dance because I have never seen a Diablada. The Diablada puneña is not the same as the Diablada of Oruro, and these are also not the same as the Diablada pillareña (There are sources certifying this). These are all different dances. Hence why it is completely incorrect to attribute the dance as the specific ownership of one country.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it'd be clearer when we reach that part, but for example Cuentas Ormachea does describe it, and identifies differences but still relates them. Besides the main characters Devil, China Supay, And Archangel Saint Michael are in both styles while the Pillareña doesn't have any of those.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  02:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that the Diabladas in the altiplano seem to have influenced each other (The Diablada Chilena is an off-shoot from the Diablada of Oruro, though I think there is a source explaining that it also has some influence from Peruvian dancers...not really too sure on that), but they are still different dances. The Diablada in Pillaro has apparently developed on its own despite the article from the government of Ecuador explains that one theory revolving its creation is that it was brought by immigrants from neighboring Andean countries. However, the dance is still a Diablada. It holds the same kind of roots as the other Diabladas: Spanish culture mixing with Native American culture. The dance is called Diablada, the dancers are dressed as devils and also hold parades and presentations. Perhaps the best way to approach this is by creating different sections for the different choreographies; not determining which Diablada is the official Diablada (because there is no such thing as an "official" Diablada; Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia have all claimed their dances are cultural patrimonies of their nations).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest later when we get to the body of the article to focus on the regional variations in the stylistic characteristics and move the material regarding its history to that section. However perhaps we could add the text "There is a style of dance proper of Ecuador named Diablada pillareña" somewhere apart to make it clear that is different from the Andean one.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  03:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a good idea. However, the question still revolves as to how different the dance truly is. We have to remain in the boundaries of the source because, as you have stated before, we should not create links or by that matter come up with any conclusions. Pillaro is in the Andes, and its Diablada is also an Andean Diablada. It has two theories on its origin: One (which is arguably the most important and closest in relation to the Diablada in the altiplano) which states that the dance is first created by immigrant communities of neighboring Andean nations during colonial times, and the other which attributes the dance as having roots in some local conflicts/rivalries. Essentially, one theory is that it developed independently and the other that it developed as a result of immigrants from other nations (such as Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia; these are Ecuador's closest "Andean neighbors"). I really would not know how to include it into the introduction; how about we add it in the fourth paragraph of the introduction (Where it is described that the Diablada has different variations)? Perhaps we should just postpone this question of the Diablada pillareña until later? Also, so then do you agree that mentioning Ecuador is OK? (That would establish Ecuador as OK, but would still leave the question over Argentina).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that we should add that text to the end of the lead, then really see if there is more information right now I think we lack of information to conclude anything and postpone the topic of Diablada pillareña for later. Regarding Argentina I believe it was introduced by the Bolivian communities there in the 90s I don't know it'd have the same treatment as Austria and the US. Perhaps instead of putting it in the same body later in the lead it could say "There is a style of dance proper of Ecuador named Diablada pillareña and squads of Diablada were founded in other countries such as Argentina, United States and Austria" I believe that in Sweden and Japan too, the last one I think its named "Diablada Rising Sun".  Erebedhel   -  Talk  04:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your plan. If the Diablada has been danced in the US for a long time, I think you stated 11 years, then it should be worth mentioning. The one in Austria seems to be notable as well. Perhaps it could be a section called "Diablada outside South America" or something like that. Nonetheless, the question here is whether the Diablada is an important part of the cultural festivities of the nations. The Diablada pillareña has been performed since colonial times in Ecuador (and is done every single year); I think that by nature the Diablada is an important part of the festivities of Ecuador. Would you agree with this?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 05:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Diablada pillareña is undoubtedly important for Ecuador, sadly it lacks of information. Let's leave that text till we get there or find more information.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have 3 or more sources on the matter. I do not have as many or as strong sources for Argentina. Could we please have a compromise here? Let Ecuador be mentioned as having its Diablada being an important part of its cultural heritage in the introduction (because it is well-supported), and drop Argentina (because it is not well-supported)?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k


 * Yeah, I think we both agree on this, Ecuador's Diablada gets in the lead, we'll see the rest eventually. Meanwhile I think Tbsdy will have a lot of reading to do, let's see what he has to say about our progress so far.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. Yes, let's let Tbsdy get caught up on the matter; and also let's wait for his decision on the first subject in which we cannot find a common solution.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 - Timing
Main point of debate: Is it accurate to say it's only during the 16th century?

MarshalN20 exposed that 1538 and 1576 are in the 16th century, which is correct, and the mention to 1818 didn't mention specifically that it was the date suggested by Max Harris, however I believe he didn't read the whole text in the paragraph The Sins of the Carnival Virgin and I wouldn't blame him because it's 20 pages long from page 205 to page 225 but in resume Max Harris says that the Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II in 1781 represented a big event in the city of Oruro and it was the event that marked Oruro's carnival because the rebellion occurred during those days, Harris suggests that a generation later the parish priest Ladislao Montealegre tried to represent this event and wrote a play named "Narrative of the Seven Deadly Sins" which according to him and Fortún would be inspired in the Ball de Diables and then later he explains how it adapted into the modern Diablada. This theory is also present in other studies

Besides another theory suggested in this book says that it was during the 18th century in Potosí.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph you present constantly speaks of the creation of the "Relato de la Diablada" (English: Tale of the Diablada). There is obviously a difference between the creation of a tale and the creation of a dance. However, your second one-sentence paragraph does provide the exact mention of the dance and it does bring about the view of its creation in the 18th century in Potosi (It also mentions that the dance was brought to Oruro in the 19th century). Therefore, based on that, it is not accurate to attribute the creation of the dance to the 16th century. However, it should be noted this source once again makes mention of the Autos Sacramentales theory.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The dance enacts a play about the struggle of good and evil... it's danced but it also has a story, is like Grease (musical). But yes there are several theories and many books say different things, so picking only one would be inaccurate, that's my central point.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should let Tbsdy decide whether these issues are resolved or not?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 00:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought you agreed but if you have anything else to add it's ok.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the central point of this discussion based on the last source you provided. However, I do not agree with your final statement regarding "there are several [...]" because this subject has a wide coverage of topics and I do not know which one you are refering to. Instead marking this as resolved, you should first re-state the central focus of your question and ask whether the central issue is resolved or not. Tbsdy then from that response should mark this as resolved or not (since he is the arbitrator). I would not be picky about this in a regular discussion, but based on how things have developed in this matter (Particularly the ease with which statements are misunderstood) it is best to keep things at the most formal and strict of ways.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Main issue on this section was as said above "Is it accurate to say it's only during the 16th century?" you said "Therefore, based on that, it is not accurate to attribute the creation of the dance to the 16th century." my comment saying that there are several theories is regarding the whole topic of the Diablada, origins, cultural heritage, symbolism, and also dates, I think we solved the issue on dates we should focus on the rest.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. Then the central issue is resolved. 2 issues resolved thus far.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 – Lupakas or Anchanchu
Main point of debate: Should the lead mention Lupakas or Dance of the Anchanchu?

I noticed that MarshalN20 reintroduced a part regarding the name Dance del Anchanchu (now wikilinked) that I previously changed to Lupakas. We didn't mention our reasons for that change but I consider it fair to explain it further, MarshalN20's information is based on the following article:

The mask maker Edwin Loza Huarachi, Punean mask maker who had been dancer of the Diablada during more than twenty years, in which he has danced like angel and as devil, proposes go further in this generalized supposition which treats the Diablada as an Auto Sacramental of the Catholic Church, which represents the struggle between good and the evil, and in which the one who decides the victory of the archangels is the protector virgin of the miners, mother of the Candlemas. In its place, he raises as requirement to understand the meaning of the dance the necessity of submerge oneself in the cosmos understanding of the Aymara men, to find there some of the responses beyond the apparent. Is this way he prefers to name Dance of the Anchanchu''" to what today is known as Diablada Puneña

First of all Edwin Loza Huarachi himself says that Diablada puneña = Dance of the Anchanchu so it wouldn't need a different article. But overall I really don't think that mr Loza Huarachi suggestion would constitute a really relevant reason to change Lupakas which also are in the literature that defend the theory of Juli.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Huarachi is not the only person that makes reference to the ritual dance to "Anchanchu" (or "Anchancho," also called "Tio"). Dr. Omar Aramayo, a historian, also makes note of it: .-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we're discussing two different things here, Anchanchu ≠ Dance of the Anchanchu. In the Aymaran mythology there exists this figure:




 * And the Punean variation has this character I wrote it in my workshop:




 * However, there is no such thing as an ancient "Dance of the Anchanchu" it's just Huarachi's suggestion of name change. Besides what's the problem with the Lupakas? that's the main issue I really don't see anything wrong with that.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  01:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So then would you agree on the following sentence (Based on the three sources provided in this section): "The dance is a mixture of the Spaniard's theatrical presentations and Andean rituals such as the llama llama dance in honor of the Uru god Tiw and the Aymaran miner's ritual to Anchanchu, a terrible demon spirit of caves and other isolated places."-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅  Erebedhel  -  Talk  02:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One last question, is "Tiw" the same character as "Tio"? If that is the case, Dr. Aramayo states that "Anchanchu" is also the same character as Tio.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, well the Tiw from the Uru culture was hispanized as Tío → then derived in the myth of the perfectible devil page 3 the thing is the timing eventually accross the Andes the Anchanchu and the Tiw with the Spanish ended up being the same thing the Tío and the Devil, but at the moment of the introduction the Anchanchu was Aymara and the Tiw was Uru also Wari.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  03:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Still, I find it unfair that "Anchanchu" gets explained but "Tiw" is left without an explanation. We should explain that these are both the same kind of deities (or at least similar, like Jupiter (mythology) and Zeus). How about this for a sentence? : "The dance is a mixture of the Spaniard's theatrical presentations and Andean religious ceremonies such as the llama llama dance in honor of the Uru god Tiw and the Aymaran miner's ritual to Anchanchu, both folkloric deities being terrible demon spirits of caves and other isolated places." (NOTE: I switched "Andean rituals" to "Andean religious ceremonies" in order to avoid the repetition of "ritual").-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The tricky part is that for the Uru mythology the Tiw is a protector while in Aymara mythology is a demon, in the link above said "The Tiw protector of the Urus in mines, lakes and rivers. In the case of Oruro or Hururu, is owner of the caves and rocky shelters."perhaps we should change the text to: "The dance is a mixture of the Spaniard's theatrical presentations and Andean religious ceremonies such as the llama llama dance in honor of the Uru god Tiw their protector in mines, lakes and rivers, and the Aymaran miner's ritual to Anchanchu, a terrible demon spirits of caves and other isolated places." or something like that.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  04:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I like that idea. I've also created/fixed the articles in order to fit both deities. The Tiw one needs some sourcing, though (so that it won't get deleted). The sentence is a bit of a run-on, though. Perhaps it might be best to use parenthesis at this point: "The dance is a mixture of the Spaniard's theatrical presentations and Andean religious ceremonies such as the llama llama dance in honor of the Uru god Tiw (their protector in mines, lakes, and rivers), and the Aymaran miner's ritual to Anchanchu (a terrible demon spirit of caves and other isolated places)." Of course, then it would need the appropiate sourcing and etc. Do you agree with this sentence or do you think it can be further improved?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's ok, perhaps we could also use —text like that— too. I have sources for the Tiw and images once we finished I'll work on it, oh and good you fixed the redirect I suppose that the people at Týr wouldn't mind.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They probably will. You just reminded me of a similar situation I had with another article. I'll fix that in order to avoid any problems with the Tyr people. Yes, using the dashes is good too; it's mainly a matter of style (it's fine either way with me, though I think using "" tends to be more common). Perhaps you could provide those pictures of Tiw to the Diablada article as well (in the "Native American Roots" section or something of the like)?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh good fix that one and also we have to correct the links here to avoid ruining those other articles, and sure I found really nice images to add to the article when we advance I'll be adding them.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  05:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading through all of this
Sorry again folks, I have been incredibly busy over the last week. I'm reading through this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have a read of the debate later on (it's actually quite late here), but I have to say that I suspect that I might not be needed any more! You two are debating the topics extremely well. You are both on point, and you are both seeing that the other is doing good work. Consequently, it seems to me that you are both working on reasonable compromises and you're working on sorting out the text to be as neutral and factual as possible.


 * As I say, I have to read through the discussion - but if I see that this is the case, then I would like to compliment you both on your excellent editing. If, as I suspect, you are discussing only the material and you are both seeing the good work and contributions of the other, but are able to civilly disagree on points in a way that doesn't lead to loggerhead, then I'm going to ask for this mediation to be used as a model for further mediation in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think (or at least hope) that the situation has calmed down and now we can discuss better discuss the matter. However, the thing here is that this is just the first paragraph. There is nothing too controversial on the matter on this first paragraph. The second paragraph and onwards is where this gets really ugly. Also, for the first paragraph we still need someone (in this case you Tbsdy) to please help us come to a conclusion to decide what to do with the different theories on the matter (Ball de Diables and the Autos Sacramentales theories).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tbsdy, however I agree with MarshalN20 here, fortunately 3 out of 4 points have been resolved but the first issue still needs a third opinion, if you're busy there is no problem I believe MarshalN20 is also busy with his studies and I have some other things to do too so we can work in a slow pace. I believe that once the lead is finished the work will be more fluent though.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  16:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)