Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Diablada

Opening statements
Hi all - apologies for the delay in starting this mediation, there were a few issues finding a mediator but I'm going to take the request on if everyone is happy with that. To start things off, please could all parties make an opening statement about what you believe are the main issues that need mediating. Please limit yourself to 500 words. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by party 1
Hello Ryan thank you very much for accepting the case, I'm looking forward to improve the article this way. Well this is my opening statement:

There is a dispute between Bolivia and Peru regarding the dance of the Diablada. Throughout the 20th century most historians referred to it as a dance originated in Oruro, Bolivia. But after 2001 when the Carnaval de Oruro was declared by the UNESCO as heritage of humanity, Peru intensified its campaign to promote other theories to contradict that theory. The UNESCO study which started in 1991 concluded that the dance had origins in the Uru worship of the god Tiw in a ritual performed in the ancient location of Oruro which is considered a sacred place by the Urus; and the creation of the modern Diablada, according to Bolivian historians, is attributed to the Bolivian choreographer Pedro Pablo Corrales in 1904 who created a squad named Gran Tradicional y Auténtica Diablada Oruro later a Peruvian newspaper in the border city of Puno registers that this same choreographer was the one who taught to a Peruvian squad named Vaporinos his dance later in 1918, and in 1922 due to budget limitations the Vaporinos couldn’t afford hiring Bolivian bands and hired a traditional music band named Sikuris del barrio Mañazo. This dance then became also part of the Fiesta de la Candelaria in Puno, but over the years Peru started to claim that dance as their creation upsetting Bolivian officials as they consider this behaviour as "illegal cultural heritage appropriation" and since 1978 Bolivia included the protection of, what they consider, the origins of the Diablada in Oruro as part of their Cultural Policy. This could be considered the Bolivian side of the history.

In the recent Miss Universe contest, Miss Peru wore a suit of the Diablada, which again led to a diplomatic dispute between both countries. In the Peruvian newspapers the theory suggested by the coordinator of cultural activities of the native association Puno, José Morales Serruto, was promoted. This theory says that the Diablada was created by the introduction in the city of Juli, Peru of the Autos sacramentales to the Aymaran kingdom of the Lupakas, in 1576, and the creators of the modern Diablada were the musical band Sikuris del barrio Mañazo created in 1892 (the band mentioned above). Also the director of the cultural group Yuyachkani of Peru, Miguel Rubio Zapata, after an interview with a mask maker suggests that the dance should be called Dance of the Anchanchu (an Aymaran God). Which could be considered the Peruvian point of view.

Under my perspective, the article as it is today, bows for the theory suggested recently by José Morales Serruto, the study of the UNESCO is minimized, fails to provide attribution to the respective theories and the context in which they were proposed, contains several elements of original research, and the section of the Miss Universe dispute besides of not being a relevant academic event has became only a critic to Bolivia, it has issues of WP:NOT and WP:BLP, I think it just makes things even more complicated and should be removed.

(493 words!)--  Erebedhel  -  Talk  05:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by party 2
Thank you for taking the case Ryan. I'll go by points (it's easier for me; and I'm sure it's easier for you as well), but it might exceed 500 words:


 * 1. The article shouldn't be nationalistic. The other party involved should understand that the Diablada has a controversial background, certified by a variety of sources, which does not certify a specific origin to the dance. In controversial articles such as these, the best thing to do is seek for WP:NPOV. This should be understood by the parties involved. Examples of POV pushing in the article:
 * Infobox is changed in order to favor Bolivia:
 * Introduction changed to favor Bolivia:
 * 2. The other party should understand the point of WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." I believe I already tried explaining this, but apparently it had no effect. Example of the other party presenting original research or unverified statements:
 * "(were the figure of the archangel Micheal does not appear)"
 * 3. It should be understood that there is no "conspiracy theory" behind this dispute. Here in this section to present our points the other party states he states, "Peru intensified its campaign to promote other theories to contradict that theory." The point which should be clarified is that this is not about contradicting one theory or the other, but rather to present all of the theories regarding the origins of the dance without favoring one above the other.
 * 4. The UNESCO hasn't certified anything on the origins of the dance. They have provided information regarding the roots of the dance, but it does not state where or when the "Diablada" dance was made. On the UNESCO statement, the main points regarding the Diablada are:
 * "The Ito festival was transformed into a Christian ritual, celebrated on Candlemas (2 February)": The "Candlemas celebration" is celebrated in Puno, Peru.
 * "The traditional llama llama or diablada in worship of the Uru god Tiw became the main dance at the Carnival of Oruro": It doesn't say the dance originated in Oruro. It merely states that the "llama llama" (or "Diablada") became the main dance at the Carnival of Oruro. However, they do say that the "llama llama" is traditional of the Uru peoples; but the Uru peoples are an international culture group (mainly Peru-Bolivia) that was conquered by the Aymara (which took the Uru customs and took them all around the Altiplano).
 * "the procession which still shows many features dating back to medieval mystery plays": Here the UNESCO also agrees that the festivities took root from medieval mystery plays.
 * 5. The same thing goes for the Real Academia Española, which the other party attempts to constantly use in order to impose Bolivian POV in the article. It should be discussed and understood that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or WP:NAD. A dictionary definition for a term does not suddenly certify accuracy as dictionaries are not encyclopedias, and therefore encyclopedias should not take dictionary definitions as ultimate facts.
 * Example of the dictionary being used as a prominent word on the matter:
 * 6. I would suggest for you, Ryan, to read the [Puno section of the Diablada] page in order to actually understand the situation regarding the Diablada in Puno. The section is not perfect, but the sources used help provide a better picture of the situation (better than the one presented by the first party).
 * 7. The position presented in the article is by no means simply the ideas of José Morales Serruto. There are a variety of sources, each presenting a variety of perspectives on the matter. Obviously, if the only sourced being used was that of José Morales Serruto, then the whole position of Puno would be weak and highly irrelevant; but that's not the case.
 * 8. The article right now is still on a development stage. I haven't been able to work on the article recently because I didn't want to creater further controversies with the other party involved, but also because I understand that I don't WP:OWN the article and mainly due to my studies in the "real world." Also, it should be discussed what the difference is between "expanding" an article and "removing and replacing" information in the article (one is constructive, and the other is destructive).
 * The history section is still under development and solely presents one point of view. I understand that this section needs to have other points of view, but the other party has not bothered to add anything constructive. The other party likes to delete material, including sourced material, and begins to push POV in favor of Bolivia. This problem should be discussed and understood.
 * The devotions and choreography sections need sources. I translated these mainly from the Spanish Wikipedia.
 * "Regional Variations" also needs an expansion of information. However, like I stated before, I am not the only person who has to work on expanding the article.
 * 9. The "Controversies" section is important as it presents a perspective for the reader of the kind of problems going on in regards to the origins of the dance. Both of the events mentioned are of important international situations. Both of the events involved the governments of both Peru and Bolivia. The situation is, therefore, more than simple news story.

I apologize for having gone over the limit of 500 words (I'm sure without the examples it is probably less than 500 words). Like I said before, the problem currently in the article is quite complex. Nonetheless, these should be the main points that need to be addressed in the article. Thanks again for deciding to take care of the case. I really hope you can help sort all of this out once and for all.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)