Just From One Country?

Recently i have been seeing many changes of this page. Some changes that say that the dance Belongs to Bolivia. If you edit this page then please leave out Patriotism and put in only facts.

Not Everything Is Born To Be Known 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive heard that the dance is Bolivian, UNESCO has recogniced as Bolivian, dont know why Perubian still say that its theirs, here in NY i know many of them and they dont even know what the dance is like, anyway just a thought.

23 sept 2009

Your toughts are incorrect. Peru claims that the dance belongs to all nations whose culture is associated with it. In other words, Peru claims that they, Chile, and Bolivia have equal rights upon the dance. However, it's only the idiotic government of Bolivia, and several ignorants from said nation, that claim the dance as their own. UNESCO has recognized the "Carnaval de Oruro" as an important patrimony of humanity, but has not said anything about who holds the ownership of the dances or music.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia may be perhaps the country where the Daiblada has most signifation for the country as whole, but the claim of exclusivity is just a recent political claim. Any polemical statement of exclusivity, origin, or something simmilar should be removed from that artcile of not properly sourced. This article seems to need permanent watching. Dentren | ^Talk 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get Perubian, i just read in the news that they claim ownership as well, but now they are saying the dance is from the region, seems to me that they are changing their arguments, ill just keep looking, but for what ive seen the dance is much stronger in Bolivia than Peru or Chile, so maybe it is Bolivian afterall.--User talk:131.178.240.181

It seems to me that Evo Morales, the Ekeko, has brainwashed Bolivians. Just because the dance is more popular in Bolivia, it doesn't mean that the Bolivians invented it. That's quite a pointless argument.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find more sources about the dance. I don't really care much about it, but I don't agree with the random IP editors who vandalize the page and take advantage of the lack of reliable sources. My position is the same: The Diablada is a dance of Peru, Chile, and Bolivia. It's an important part of these 3 nation, and not one nation can claim exclusivity of this dance. Of course, if any other editor wishes to bring in other sources in order to build up on the article, they can feel free to do so.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here i found some sources (Mexican, not Bolivian or Perubian) about the status of the conflict, unfortunatly is in spanish, if you know spanish then read them. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/621071.html http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/08/21/index.php?section=espectaculos&article=a08n2esp --User talk:131.178.240.181

Those sources talk about Bolivian propaganda for the dance. Nothing more.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont get why mexicans that have nothing to do with the dance would make propaganda for them, i found a similar article from England, later ill upload it.--User talk:131.178.241.109

well i went to Bolivia 2 years ago and seen the Entrada universidad, hope is spelled correctly, really big party in La Paz, all streets closed and a lots of dances including Diablada, the next year I went to Peru and havent see it, they had other good dances but I haven’t seen this Diablada. and now I hear that the town of Puno only has it, looking at a map, and adding the regions in Chile that the Diablada is danced, Bolivia is the center and at the borders with Peru and Chile, it is also the places where the Diablada is danced. In my opinion the dance has spread from Bolivia to the borders of other countries many years ago maybe, iam not saying is Bolivian but if you see it, feels Bolvian. Now it is true, they don’t have the exclusivity to dance it, but hey if I was a Brazilian going around saying the Tango is from Brazil, I am sure there would be some mad Argentineans that would be really pised of--User talk:131.178.240.181

The Diablada was being danced in Puno much longer than it has been in Oruro. So, the Diablada originated in Peru. Simple as that. However, the Peruvian government does not claim sole ownership of the dance. It knows that Bolivia and Chile also practice it, and thus it was never really a point of discussion between these nations. That is, until Bolivia now claims it as its own.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I more less agree with Marshal, and I want to point out the following things to keep in mind;

• It is historian José Morales Serruto (here) who claims that the Diablada orignated in Juli, other sources (page 478) mentions autosacramentales in Juli, but does not claim any origin of the dance. Dr. José Morales Serruto seems a reliable source despite being cited by Peruvian newspapers.
• The dispute is absurd because the diablada is Aymara-Quechue-Colonial heritage no mathers in which country it was first perfomed. Aymara and Quechua culture predates the formation of the modern states of Bolivia, Chile and Peru.
• The Spanish wikipedia article explains this topic much better than here, explaining much better the Aymara-Quechua component of the dance, that makes it a whole different thing than a medieval dance from Spain.
• The overall popularity of this dance and national identification with it may be strongest in Bolivia (and therefoe they might have started this dispute) but this "idea" can not be incluided if not properly sourced. Dentren | ^Talk 13:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please one comment only, its ok that you have your opinion Marshal but this is a discussion between people who have something to say, it is clear you are Perubian or love Peru and would like to go for youre country, but just one comment is enough, let other people say their arguments, thanks.--User talk:131.178.241.109

CHILEAN OPINION

I am Chilean living in Chicago, I know a lot of Bolivians and danced the diablada as morenada many times, best dance ever, and i just laugh how Perubians tend to steal everything, I admit that Chileans dance it but we know is Bolivian, and reading this discussion seems there is a whole discussion with one peruabian trying to make PUNOS the Diablada saying is the oldest manifestation from this dance, i say prove it, it is easy to say Puno is the birth place of Diablada, but proving it its different, my friends told me that the litigation that Bolivia is doing has proves on it, but Peruvians is just bla bla bla. Really folks don’t believe in anything Perubians say, In southamerica are known as thief’s.--User talk:131.178.241.109

You know it looks really silly for you to be acting as different people when we can all see it's the same person from before. Tisk, tisk. Shame on you.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you it was a different person using the same port, that’s why it says CHiLEAN OPINION, no my opinion, but I think now him and me share the same thinking about Perubians being thief’s, now really shame on me?? Try to look yourself in the mirror then let me know Peruvian.--User talk:131.178.241.109

Why don't you reveal yourself? I know you're a Wikipedian with a registered account. You keep saying it was somebody else, but IP addresses are not shared unless they are from public places. Obviously, if your IP was public, more than two people would write on it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of asking who am i, why don’t you prove me that Puno is the place where the diablada was born , really i want to see that, not from Peruvian pages please, becuase i had enough of them, all is bla bla bla, no facts…

If you're going to take that position, then all Bolivian information on the matter would also be "bla bla bla." Also, I ask you to reveal yourself in order for us to have a better discussion. After all, discussing things with an IP Address is a highly informal way to discuss things. For all we know, it could be me behind that IP address.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who claims that Punos diablada was danced before everyone else, I ve never made that assumption about Bolivia yet, even in the main page shown as it was a fact(soon changed) now I am asking you show me that fact, If u are so sure show it to me then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.241.109 (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If more verification is needed it might be found in one of the sources listed at the bottom of the page: Template:Es icon"Origen de la Diablada". Punomagico.com. Retrieved 2009-09-27.

• Fraile D. Gonzales Olguín, “Arte de la lengua Aymara y Vocabulario General del Perú"
• Enrique Cuentas Ormachea.
• José Morales Serruto, Ana Isabel Morales Aguirre, (2009) Historia de la Diablada Diablada Azoguini.
• ¿La Diablada es Boliviana? Los Andes (2008).
• “Religión y Fiesta de la Virgen Candelaria” Tomas C. Yupanqui Aza
• “Tata Pancho “Historia, Costumbres y Tradiciones Jose M. Gallegos.

75.69.0.58 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some great sources. Thank you.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what part of non perubian you didt get, all of this are Perubian, i got 100 Bolivian links also that talks about the origins of the Diablada,but wouldnt help in this situation. "la Diablada es Boliviana by Los Andes" (perubian newspaper)really, are you serius, waste of time with you Perubians, I bet Chile would give me stronger argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.241.109 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with Chile? First you act as a Chilean (though you obviously aren't), and now you keep bringing up Chile in the discussion. All material is properly referenced in the article.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all I’m proceeding to remove the section Bolivian "reivindication" because it’s written in a biased (and extremely offensive way) this is an encyclopaedia and such kind of non-academic attempts to insult a country are not acceptable here. Secondly Marshall I ask you to remove the national insults you have written above, because those are clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV.

Now to contribute with more sources here is the definition of "Diablada" in the Diccionario de la lengua española de la Real Academia Española: In Spanish:

Danza típica de la región de Oruro, en Bolivia, llamada así por la careta y el traje de diablo que usan los bailarines.

In English:

Typical dance of the region of Oruro, in Bolivia, called that way because of the mask and the devil suit wore by the dancers

• http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=Diablada

And the Proclamation 2001: "the Carnival of Oruro" by the UNESCO says:

The town of Oruro, situated at an altitude of 3,700 metres in the mountains of western Bolivia and once a pre-Columbian ceremonial site, was an important mining area in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Resettled by the Spanish in 1606, it continued to be a sacred site for the Uru people, who would often travel long distances to perform their rituals, especially for the principal Ito festival. The Spanish banned these ceremonies in the seventeenth century, but they continued under the guise of Christian liturgy: the Andean gods were concealed behind Christian icons and the Andean divinities became the Saints. The Ito festival was transformed into a Christian ritual, celebrated on Candlemas (2 February). The traditional llama llama or diablada in worship of the Uru god Tiw became the main dance at the Carnival of Oruro.

• http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?cp=BO

And to all the Spanish speakers maybe you'll find this reading quite enlightening:

• http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9750175/spanisch/diablada_punenia.htm

It's the 1986 Boletín de Lima with an article of Enrique Cuentas Ormachea saying on page 35 last paragraph:

"The Diablada was presented in Puno the February 2nd of 1918, in the festivity of the Virgen de la Candelaria. Under the name of “Los Vaporinos” a group of workers from the Peruvian Corp., that sailed the waters of the Lake Titicaca, was formed. They rented the suits of the dance and a band of musicians to the Bolivian dancer Pedro Pablo Corrales, who was recognized as “Diablada” master.

...

“los Andes” of Puno said: “to the puneñian festivity of La Candelaria, of 1918, was brought for the first time a devil’s squad..."

Historians like Julia Elena Fortún and Teresa Gisbert state that the modern Diablada is a genre of the medieval syncretism product of the mixture of the Spanish tradition of Ball de Diables from Tarragona and the ancient not Aymara, not Quechua but Uru tradition of the Llama Llama which took place centuries ago in the current location of Oruro as the UNESCO states. Teresa Gisbert also states that the Ball de diables inspired what today is Diablada in Oruro and the Juli's "autos sacramentales" inspired the Saqras or Sajras Devils in Cuzco. Get it? two different dances one has its roots in the Uru beliefs and the other in the Quechua ones.

It doesn't have to do with politics or beauty contests it's just pure history if you read the rules of the project Wikipedia you should start your own article Saqras and put Diego González Holguin's writings about the "devil dances" in Peru.

Now there is plenty to develop about this subject the same debate is being held in the Spanish Wikipedia, serious developers are working in this subject so I please ask not to reduce this cultural topic to gossip about beauty pageants or socialism, because that only shows that the people who pretend to become the police of this article lack of knowledge of this particular topic and are only trying to push their hatred to the other country which against Wikipedia's policy.--Erebedhel (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is boring. So first, in regards to the UNESCO statement, it doesn't state that it certifies the dance as Bolivian. It simply calls the Diablada a traditional dance. Then, I find it funny how you reference Enrique Cuentas Ormachea, because in this article he states:

"La Diablada Puneña hasta 1965, fue todavía diferente de la boliviana. La transformación se debió a que el grupo de llamado como los “Vaporinos” empezó, en la década de los 20, a introducir elementos bolivianos; sin embargo todavía se hacían acompañar por una banda de “Sicu-Morenos”, compuesta por instrumentistas de sicus o zampoñas que se acompañaban con un bombo, una tarola o redoblante, un par de platillos y un triángulo. Este grupo musical ejecutaba huaynos de ritmo sincopado, a cuyo compás bailaban diablos caporales, diablos menores, chinas diablas y demás “figuras” que acompañaban (“Viejito” “negro jetón”, “apache”. “león”, “murciélago”, “cóndor”, “oso”, “gorila”, “jirafa”, etc.)."

Essentially, Ormachea further expands on the story and states that the Diablada Punena began to receive some Bolivian influence through the "Vaporinos." However, in the same article he explains that it was only an influence, and that the Diablada Punena was already being danced prior to the "Vaporinos." Here's the article: Diablada: coreografía, vestimenta y música.

Here's also this article which explains the origins of the Diablada Punena (how it was done before the Bolivian Diablada). This article has many more details and is quite informative (with some pictures as well): El Sicu Moreno en la Diablada de Puno.

It's all in Spanish, but the information is straight-forward. The basic point is, as was mentioned before, the Diablada originated in Juli, Puno.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you have violated WP:NPOV, where?

• The use of quotation in reivindication to imply your position against Bolivia’s demand, (besides reivindication is not an existent English word)
• The tagging as propaganda instead of describing in a neutral tone the dispute.
• Mentioning "which they wished to show" in a sarcastic way.
• The last paragraph only shows a biased interpretation of what the UNESCO has in its description.

Also you have violated WP:NPA and WP:CIV insulting Bolivians above, I asked you to erase those offensive statements but you haven’t. First attend those points then you can continue.

Now you have to make a difference between what is it a biased source (i.e. any Bolivian or Peruvian newspaper) and a neutral source (i.e. UNESCO and RAE) you can interpret as you please, and actually the Wikipedia manual states that when there is a dispute, it has to be written in an unbiased way giving the proper information to let the reader to make a decision. But sadly there is absolutely no international organization claiming that the Diablada is “traditional” in Peru (no matter how you want to interpret the word "traditional"). When the definition itself of the word "Diablada" changes, and the Peruvian government could make the RAE and the UNESCO mention that it’s also "traditional" in Peru then you can change the article meanwhile it’s only non-sense ramblings of Peruvian newspapers.

As for the complete paragraph (is always good to read a complete article, book or description before jumping to conclusions) you have only read the "traditional" part but you have failed to read that the whole paragraph is talking about. how Oruro was the place of an pre-Columbian ancient tradition (that place I particular not Juli or Puno not even La Paz) to where all the Uru people "would often travel long distances to perform their rituals, especially for the principal Ito festival" That’s before any Spanish conqueror settled in Juli.

I’ve read a long time ago both of your "articles" (non WP:RS) and I ask any scholar to prove me that a post-national-dispute editorial written by a Peruvian historian, is more valid than the same historian writing about the same topic quoting the same newspaper's news 90 years ago the very same day when the event happened (primary source) saying: to the puneñian festivity of La Candelaria, of 1918, was brought for the first time a devil’s squad..

In the 1986 article he also mentions on page 45 that:

The puneñian Diablada from 1922 till 1965, was different from the Bolivian. The transformation was due to the economic limitations of the group “Vaporinos”, who introduced the first Diablada, that didn’t allow them to pay the costs of rent of a musicians’ band, replacing it by the “Sicu-Morenos” band.

Everybody knows that once a dispute arises both parts won’t write in a neutral way. And that’s a clear proof of that.

And do you even think that "infopuno.com" is a reliable source? Please, is just a collection of copy/paste of the studies of Cuentas Ormachea and Teresa Gisbert (which I've also read entirely) but adding their biased interpretations as an advertisement of Puno's tourism and Cusqueña Beer. Instead why nobody mentions the "great mystical and ancestral" introduction of Superman and the Mexican and the dancing skeleton in Puno? Enrique Cuentas Ormachea also mentions that in both articles.--Erebedhel (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell are IPs even allowed to edit Wikipedia files anyway? All you see is them changing facts to their own opinions. I'm neither on Peru's or Bolivia's side as to who the Diablada belongs to, but based on facts i would have to say that it originated in Juli, Puno. Now this discussion as to who it belongs to is an endless one. The dance is of Aymara origin, so it should be kept like that. Back then when the Spanish came there was only the land called Peru, there was no Bolivia, no Chile, nothing except New Spain, and Peru. I don't believe either countries should have the right to call the folklore theirs, but since patriotism has been taken to a whole new level of fanaticism they will never call it a draw, it will always be claimed by one side and disputed by the others. Never the less, I suggest we keep the article neutral as we have had it over the past months. As for UNESCO, they recognized the Carnaval of Oruro as an important festival to the Bolivian people, they never said that it was a Bolivian heritage. --Unknown Lupus —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Lupus, Peru isn't claiming the dance as national property. It's claiming that the dance belongs to all nations with Aymara culture (Peru, Bolivia, and Chile; and maybe even Argentina). Moreover, history shows that the dance originated in Juli, Puno, Peru. These people from Puno don't want to be forced to claim that the dance that was first done in their city is "from Bolivia." FURTHERMORE, Puno isn't even telling Bolivia to say that they are dancing a Peruvian dance. It's Bolivia's corrupt government that is making a big problem about this. They've brainwashed people to really believe that the dance originated in Bolivian, that it is purely Bolivian, and that everybody else copied them. No nation has to put up with this kind of bullying; and much less should Wikipedia stand for historical errors.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with you Marshal but the thing is now that the dispute has been thrown out into the open, it won't just stop now because of Bolivia's claim. I'm gonna keep and eye on this thread, i already know that i am gonna have some idiots who are cowards enough to use a private IP are gonna edit this article. As for the other users, show respect, it's Peruvian, not perubian, it's Chilean, not chilen, it's Bolivian, not bolibian. I thought Evo Morales was gonna help Bolivia get as a top South American country, but just because he is of Native Andean blood does not give him right to claim ownership of folklores. I am gonna keep a close eye on specially two articles, this one and the Ekeko article since Bolivia has also claim sole ownership of the Ekeko as well. --Unknown Lupus 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you help by expanding the history section on how the Diablada came to Bolivia? I'd like to see more about the Bolivian history of the Diablada. How it got there, how it developed, and how popular it is in Bolivian culture. Right now the article only has information on the origins of the Diablada, but it has not much about Bolivia. Instead of removing information, why don't you add information?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's precisely what I'm doing and I must point out that I'm working with Peruvian and Chilean contributors in order to improve the quality of the article, but this is the third time I ask you to decline on that attitude against Bolivia, again this is a culture article, not a politics forum, it doesn't has anything to do with Evo Morales. The history shows that the Diablada regarding its Spanish influence has its origins in the w:es:Ball de diables from Tarragona and the indigenous origins are from Uru ancestry, but also that the "Diablada" is a genre of what became the colonial "Devil Dances" the "Diablada" is one of those, there are the Sajras of Cuzco, Diablos de Naiguatá, Diablos de Chuao and Diablos de Yare in Venezuela, Grandiablos in Panamá. The problem arises and, that's where a good article has to explain in a unbiased way, about the definition of Diablada, that word is a neologism because all the historical books refer to "danza de diablos" the name "diablada"was changed in 1904 as a new genre of that dace characterized by those specific steps and mask was used by The Gran Tradicional Diablada de Oruro, the same group traveled to Puno to show their "style" in 1918 and later in 1956 to Chile. Now everyone can interpret as they please. The article must "explain" the problem not take a side. That's the history. As you like if I refer to the UNESCO statements I'll use the word "traditional" and let the reader interpret it as they please. But you have to delete your nationalistic aggressions and stop bullying people here to put biased terms, you can see the exact translation of "reivindicación" here: http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=reivindicacion it's "demand", get it? --Erebedhel (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you mention is nice and all, but there are key things you're not willing to understand. Let me make a list:

• 1. The "Diablada" was already being danced in Puno prior to the "Gran Tradicional Diablada de Oruro" going there in 1918.
• 2. The "Diablada" in Puno has always had a different style of masks than that of Oruro. It never copied the Oruro style, because they already had their own style.
• 3. The "Diablada" in Puno was first introduced in Juli; which also happens to be the place where the oldest Diablada took place (The Angels and the Demons battling each other).
• 4. As you mentioned before, the Diablada in Puno takes in different elements (such as "Superman" and the "Mexican") than the Diablada in Oruro. Which, once again, demonstrates the Diablada of Puno is unique.
• 5. The Spanish priests might have expanded the dance with the Urus in Bolivia; but in Peru they first presented the dance in the city of Juli. This is considered this to be the first Diablada as the Spanish priests took in Andean elements in order to promote Christianity as a means to replace the old "Pagan" gods of the native Lupakas.
• 6. UNESCO hasn't said anything in terms of the ownership of the Diablada. This is purposely trying to confuse the reader.

Finally, don't come here saying you're working "with Peruvian and Chilean contributors." Wikipedia accounts are one-person accounts.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Show me one text prior to 1918 where they use the word "diablada" I mean historical text not revisionist newspaper. and answer to the question why the Los Andes newspaper said that very same day of February 2nd of 1918. "first time"? that's a homework for you, if you can answer that question with a serious study then you'll contribute with something.
• 2. I agree actually you had answered to yourself on point 4.
• 3. Poco antes de 1950 las máscaras de Diablada procedían del taller del mascarero boliviano Antonio Vizcarra. A partir de 1956, los artesanos puneños Alberto y Ramón Velásquez incursionaron en este arte link
• 4. No need to answer that
• 5. Exactly the priest presented their "Ball de diables" in Juli, good it's called "Ball de diables" it's documented it's not a Juli dance it's a Catalan dance. Show me where it says on Diego Holguin Book "we presented the Diablada" no he says they taught the "autos sacramentales" to the natives.
• 6 Did I ever said that? no I copied what the document says, you can interpret it as you please and the reader can do that, since when to quote what a document says is "purposely trying to confuse the reader"?

And when did I say that I'm sharing the account? I meant that I'm talking to them through their respective accounts. I have never violated WP:NPOV or any rules of Wikipedia I have never written any biased article, I'm just pointing out that you made some aggressive comments that do not have place in an encyclopedia, I provided more links none of them correspond to a biased newspaper, I provided the UNESCO link, saying exactly what it says, I provided the RAE link doing the same and I provided a previous article of a Peruvian historian. Instead all the links in the article correspond to newspapers, none of them meets with WP:RS. And this is not a forum, all your comments about subjects not related to the article itself are out of place.--Erebedhel (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You base your whole argument from who got the name "Diablada" first? That's completely ridiculous. The priests taught their dance to the natives, who then took it and mixed it with their own religious and traditional dances. It is this first introduction of the priests in Juli that create the mixture; this is where the dance hence originated. It wasn't called "Diablada" back then, but it was already using the essential elements of a "Diablada" (The devils and the angels). Even that 18th century drawing demonstrates that the people of Peru were already dancing a "Diablada" (though not of that name). By 1892 (19th century) there is records that in Puno the dance was being called "Danza de Diablos," and that it was still being done with the basic elements of the Diablada that first came up in Juli in the 16th century.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the only argument that can be made in favor of Bolivia is that Bolivia "invented the name" Diablada. However, the dance still originated in Juli, in 1576.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s basically why epistemology is important, that’s also why a musicology aiming is required. As I think we both agree the Diablada in Peru is different from the Bolivian one. Why there is a difference? Because the same dance taught by the Spanish the Ball de diables blended in Peru with Quechua roots, and in Bolivia with Uru roots, both "invented" their own characteristics, because if you travel to Cataluña and put three dancers one from Tarragona, other from Puno and other from Oruro they will dance differently, right? So both the Peruvian interpretation is one invention and the Bolivian interpretation is another invention, that constitutes two different things, right? Now precisely that’s why all the information in this article is wrong because the term Diablada stands for the 1904 dance of Oruro as the RAE says while, the "Danza de Diablos of Puno" belongs to another article. Together with:

• Diablos de Naiguatá
• Diablos de Chuao
• Dancing Devils of Yare
• Grandiablos

It’s a matter of the correct use of words, maybe for you it’s not important and that’s your opinion which I respect but basically encyclopaedias require of the precise use of language. I’m just pointing out that so if we agree the you’re free to work all you want in your article you can name it Danza de Diablos de Puno or as I suggest which is more accurate is Saqras or Sajras.

Regarding Juli in 1576, well sadly the w:es:Ball de diables was invented in 1426 in Tarragona so we can’t be so sure if it was “invented” in Juli, it was just taught there. You can have all the personal opinions you want about Bolivians I can’t change that but those don’t belong to Wikipedia, this is an encyclopaedia not a nationalistic forum.--Erebedhel (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, you are incorrect. You ask why the dances are different, but the answer you provide is an interpretation that you are creating in your own mind. In Peru and in Bolivia, the dance mixed with a common Aymara root (not Quechua). The dance stopped being the European "Ball de diables" once the Native Americans mixed in their own culture into it. This is what happened in Juli, Puno, in 1576. The dance was not named "Diablada," but it was by all means a "Diablada" as it mixed European with Native American beliefs, and had all the essential concepts of a Diablada. The dance that originated in Juli spread to other areas, including eventually Oruro. The information in this article is completely correct. The variations that have taken place in Oruro and Puno are exactly that: variations. It's like Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" taken into cultural terms. All of Darwin's Galapagos finches were different species, but in the end they were all finches. In the same way, the Diablada of Puno and the Diablada of Oruro are of different species, but they are both from the same root. Encyclopedias require that the correct information be presented, and by you trying to claim something for Bolivia based on a name, you're completely misunderstanding the point of an encyclopedia. This is not about who invented the name first, but rather where the dance originated, why it originated, how it originated, and how it has developed over the years. The Diablada originated in Juli, Puno, in 1576.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to look after the relationship between the diabladas dances in Puno, Oruro, La Tirana and other places. Althougth the diabladas are related, all they do not need nesesarly to originate from the one danced in Juli on 1576. They could have very well developed independently at different locations after the arrival of missionaries. Dentren | ^Talk 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true Dentren but the thing is Bolivia won't just claim the Carnival of Oruro their folklore, they are saying that all the other Diablada dances from Peru, Chile and other countries are a copy of theirs. They all are similar because it's a mix of Spanish and Aymara dance, but they use different costumes and such. Even though each region in the Viceroyalty gave the dance their own personal touch, you still see the resemblance of the origin place, Juli "The Aymara Rome", which is why they are all similar. --Unknown Lupus 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, you are incorrect

— User:MarshalN20

• 1. The dance mixed with a common Aymara root (not Quechua)

wrong: In the Spanish version says “The Dr. Ricardo Arbulú explains that in a letter Diego González Holguín to his superior, the Jesuits in their mission in Juli, have taught to the natives, a song-dance about the Seven deadly sins and how the angels defeat the demons, to Christianize the inhabitants of the zone.”

Who is Diego González Holguín? He’s the writer of the book named Vocabulario de la Lengua General de todo el Peru llamada Lengua Qquichua o del Inca

• 2. The dance stopped being the European "Ball de diables" once the Native Americans mixed in their own culture into it. This is what happened in Juli, Puno, in 1576

wrong: Diego González Holguín only mentions in his letter that he taught the dance, he never says "A new genre was born" he was just Christianizing, to assume that the Diablada was born in Juli because of a vague reference of a letter in the year 1576 is a bigger misinterpretation than the meaning of "traditional" in the UNESCO declaration.

• 3. The dance was not named "Diablada," but it was by all means a "Diablada" as it mixed European with Native American beliefs, and had all the essential concepts of a Diablada.

wrong: What's then for you the "meaning" of the word Diablada if not what the Diccionario de la lengua española de la Real Academia Española says it is? and I remind you it says:

Typical dance of the region of Oruro, in Bolivia, called that way because of the mask and the devil suit wore by the dancers

Diablada en DRAE

• 4. The dance that originated in Juli spread to other areas, including eventually Oruro. The information in this article is completely correct. The variations that have taken place in Oruro and Puno are exactly that: variations

wrong: I'll answer the last question for you to show you clearly where your mistake is, you think that the definition of Diablada is "any dance with devils" but you just got the concept wrong and you built a non-academic article based entirely on your interpretations of some editorials in Peruvian newspapers, well that constitutes a violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM.

• 5. It's like Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" taken into cultural terms. All of Darwin's Galapagos finches were different species, but in the end they were all finches.

wrong: You actually didn't get the point of the whole book (which isn't a surprise) but precisely what Darwin says is that every species in the world evolve from a previous specie. The man evolved from the ape, birds from dinosaurs, etc. Now please and I'm really waiting for it, go to the article of Dinosaur and show me where it says that the dinosaurs aren't dinosaurs but since later they became finches they have lost their name and from now on schools should call them finches.

• 6. In the same way, the Diablada of Puno and the Diablada of Oruro are of different species, but they are both from the same root.

correct: The same root is called Ball de diables not "Diablada", the word Diablada stands for the 1904 Oruro dance.

• 7. Encyclopedias require that the correct information be presented, and by you trying to claim something for Bolivia based on a name, you're completely misunderstanding the point of an encyclopedia

wrong: You're trying to claim something for Juli based on a vague reference of a letter in 1576 which you didn't read but you took a whole bunch of conclusions while you fail to do the most basic thing when writing an article which is to look for the definition in the dictionary. You can't write an article about a subject whose definition you don't even know, that's obvious.

• 8. This is not about who invented the name first, but rather where the dance originated, why it originated, how it originated, and how it has developed over the years. The Diablada originated in Juli, Puno, in 1576

wrong: You fail to see that I'm not talking about the name I'm talking about a genre of the "devil dances" if you don't understand how genres work well then read carefully an example of Rock music, and see how a genre evolves, that's why musicologists bother to name each branch with a different name so people who study music can distinguish between Aboriginal rock and Raga rock and don't get confused with the usage of names, the dictionary itself is guiding you to not make the mistake you're doing of using the wrong name; Diablada is the dance from Oruro and Danza de Diablos de Puno, and the Sikuris del Barrio Mañazo belong to Peru. they are similar? yes, they have the same roots? yes. But Diablada is not "any dance with devils" is a specific genre born from the blending of the Spanish traditions and the Uru traditions, you can grab a big black marker and cover the word "traditional" from the UNESCO declaration if it bothers you so much but there still says that the "diablada" has its roots in the Uru gods which later due to Syncretism with the Spanish traditions became the Diablada, in Peru a similar process happened but with the Quechua traditions but that's called "danza de diablos" and those are the ones painted there, and the same happened in Venezuela and Panama, the Spanish priests who taught the "autos sacramentales" in each place aren't even the same persons. The only ones making that mistake with definitions are the Peruvian revisionist newspapers that based on the same logic of saying: "Oh look a dog has four legs, then it's the same as the buffalo, look both have four legs" confuse the name. If you want to describe something the basic thing you have to do is to look for it in the dictionary.--Erebedhel (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already presented my willingness to come to some sort of compromise. However, your stubborness prevents from anything being positively done about the article. You've been a registered user for a while, and yet now you get involved in an article that had been abandoned and without references for a long time. Strangely enough, you only join it in order to challenge the referenced material other users include. I still see no positive additions from your part.

• 1. Where does Holguin say that the dance is a mixture between native Quechuas and the Europeans? The Lupakas are, or at least were, Aymara peoples (they were conquered by the Aymara before the Incas came along; and the Incas were very lenient in allowing other cultures to keep their traditions).
• 2. Holguin is a primary source, and working directly from his book in order to interpret what he says is considered to be breaking WP:OR. Secondary sources, in this case a History PhD of Peru, presents a verifiable (Historians, especially PhD historians, are supposed to have the intellectual honor code of only presenting the truth to the best of their knowledge) and reliable statement in which it is said that the Diablada was created as a result of the European and Native American cultures mixing in Juli in 1576.
• 3. Once again, you're going by names and word meanings. I'll add in the article that Bolivia "invented the name" Diablada, but that's all there is to it that Bolivians can claim.
• 4. No, a Diablada is not "any dance with devils." It's a dance that comes out a result of the mixture between Native American and European elements. The same case is with the Zamacueca, which resulted out of a mixture between Native American, Spanish, and African cultures. The Zamacueca then evolved into the Chilean "Cueca" and the Peruvian "Marinera." For a while, historians thought that the Peruvian "Marinera" developed from the Chilean "Cueca," but this theory has been debunked and now it has become more accepted that both dances derive from the "Zamacueca." Now, you don't see Peruvians claiming that Chileans are dancing a Peruvian dance; do you?
• 5. In order to reply to this question, I'll use a quote from Michael Chazan, author of "World Prehistory and Archaeology": "A popular example of the popular misconception of evolution is found in the statement, 'Humans evolved from apes.' The correct statement is that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor." Read the concept of Multilineal evolution. This is exactly the same case that has come to develop such dances as the Diablada.
• 6. The root of the "Diablada Punena" and the "Diablada de Oruro" is a common ancestor which nowadays is termed "Diablada." The name wasn't around back then, but then again the name "Dinosaur" wasn't around when the dinosaurs were walking; or was it? No. We developed the term in order to describe these long extinct animals. Simlarly, the name "Diablada" wasn't around back then, but now we use it to describe a dance which holds the essential concepts to be a Diablada.

The last two points are not even worth replying to. For number 7 you claim I'm making conclusions, while I'm simply presenting information from secondary sources. Therefore, you are lying. For number 8, you don't even understand the concept of evolution and how it relates to such things in culture as dance and music; and yet you're trying to explain it. First explain the concept to yourself before you try to explain it to other people. The Diablada originated in Juli, Puno, in the Viceroyalty of Peru in the year 1576.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I’ll finish this because you tagged me as "stubborn" WP:APR violation. But let me point out that if you read carefully my first intervention here was to ask you politely to remove the national insults according to WP:CIV and WP:NPA and you ignored that, I asked you to do that several times, but they are still there.

Then I just quoted more references, I just copied the full first paragraph of the UNESCO declaration without interpreting it, I just copied it. And mentioned as the IP 75.69.0.58 did above me some other authors, PhDs, historians and etnomusicologists that have studied the subject as well such as Julia Elena Fortún and Teresa Gisbert. But you started to rant and disrespect me instead of saying thanks and read the links I provided you WP:AGF

The only reason I was participating in this discussion was because you made inappropriate comments about a nation revealing your bias, those opinions do not have a place here and should be removed and an apologize should be given. Besides I also wanted to ensure that when there is a dispute all points of view should be taken into consideration and had to be explained as such letting the reader take their own conclusions. The redaction in the article only shows one point of view which is "Juli 1576 and the Lupacas". I said that there is for example another version which says that in the case of the Bolivian Diablada it's related to the Urus which is also referenced, the reference is in the UNESCO document which I provided. Failing to include both versions is against WP:NPOV.

I have no intention to add any content right now, first of all because regardless I have an spotless record of contributions, not in the English Wikipedia but in other projects, you, for your nationalistic bias have a preconceived concept of me and you only try to harass me and insult my nationality like you did with the use of propaganda so I know I can't work with you because you consider that you're the police of this article WP:OWN engaging a disruptive editing WP:DE of it without taking into consideration other more reliable sources. But above all because I know I'm working with other people who know more about the subject, we work in a respectful way and aren't mixing folklore with politics, besides we're working not with newspaper articles but with books and serious studies so I know that the outcome of that article will be less biased than this one.

Meanwhile I do officially express my nonconformity with the title of this article based on what I consider a misinterpretation of the concept as I mentioned, based on DRAE if you manage to present a reliable source that can challenge the Real Academia with the definition of the word Diablada, then I'll remove that, meanwhile I'll present all your policy violations in RfC and ask for your national insults to be removed. You won't hear from me anymore till I have finished my work.--Erebedhel (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody put a "name disputed" tag on the article, but here in the talk page there no subsection to discuss it and itd too long to read the 38687000 KB of discusssions to get it. If somebody propose to rename this article please discuss it here and, seing the discussion above, be brief and precise and discuss other disputed things in their respective sections. Dentren | ^Talk 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this user has started a page just for me (I feel special): Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20. Well, it relates to this article. If any of you who are interested in showing some support for either one of us (excluding the sock puppets of Erebedel), feel free to comment.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Dentren is not about a name change it's about the accuracy of the use of the word Diablada based on DRAE; here I'm consulting if there are any other definitions that could explain the Chilean or Peruvian POV that's why I'm pointing that out and not moving arbitrarily the article. And what I've presented against Marshal is a User conduct complain not a disputed content one. I'm against his overall behavior against other editors not this particular article. --Erebedhel (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see.. The RAE seems to support the thesis on that the Diablada is from Bolivia. Well that s argument in favor of that, hoever we can all see that the term diablada is applied to similar dances outside Oruro and Bolivia. I think the solution to this discussion is to stress the huge popularity the dance has in Bolivia, the Bolivian claim and the fact that Bolivian diabladas influced other ones, such a La Tirana in Chile.Dentren | ^Talk 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diablada is a term associated with not just Bolivia's carnival of Oruro. Changing the name would be pointless as you will be promoting the Diablada as Bolivian when most of the facts prove to be that it is most likely to have it's origin in Peru. What are you planning to change the name to anyway? The word is accurately used in this article. Diablada is not only the dance in Bolivia but the dance in Peru, Chile, Ecuador, etc. The DRAE says that Diablada is typically danced in the region of Oruro, not that it is part of Bolivia's folklore. You also have to understand the fact that Bolivia did not exist back then so how can they call it "Bolivian folklore"? It's better if they call it Andean folklore because that's what it is, that's why the dance is know in various countries in South America.Unknown Lupus | ^Talk 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lupus makes 2 clear points. The first is that the DRAE does not state that the dance originated in Bolivia, nor does it give Bolivia ownership of the dance. This is the same problem with the UNESCO statement. The Bolivian government has promoted this idea that both of these organizations prove that Bolivia is the owner of the Diablada, and many Bolivians have fallen for that idea. However, neither organization has stated such a thing. Moreover, the DRAE is not even a historical authority of the matter (It's a dictionary!). The second excellent point of Lupus is that Bolivia did not exist as a nation when this dance was created; in fact, even Chile existed before Bolivia. At the time when the dance was created, the whole region was part of the Viceroyalty of Peru (or La Plata, depending on time-frames). However, it is the Aymaran culture of this particular region that is the important note of this subject. The Diablada is a dance that reflects a mixture of Aymaran and Spanish culture, and this is decently put forth in the article.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello again, bet you missed me Marshall, i bet you did, well I see now that you found your match here, I ve read the whole discussion and just really makes me laugh how you still try to put your ideas about the diablada as facts with Peruvian letters and newspapers, compared to the facts that a simple dictionary gives, and statements of UNESCO, I mean you say you rely on facts according to newspapers and letters instead of a dictionary and UNESCO, sources recognized worldwide, really!!!! I just want everybody beside you’re Peruvian friends (if they exist) to see this, that’s the main trouble here, a person that claims a lot of things here, insults Bolivia and try to make his points basing on PERUVIAN sources, none international, NONE. i really didn’t come here to argue with you because I dont see the point, Ive tried many times but you wouldnt listen, i just want everybody to see this, so they make up their minds about this really Perubian article, and ask everyone to read all the discussion, its clear who gives facts, and who gives Peruvian newspapers and Peruvians sources as facts. Now you claimed that I am Erebedhel, haha i wish, that person, no taking account where he is from or what he believes, is someone who tried to make a neutral environment here, not offending anybody, giving INTERNATIONAL REALIBLE SOURCES (Not Bolivian) and always according to the rules of Wikipedia, anyway I think there is no point of telling you anything else, I bet you were sweating trying to argue with him, but hey I invite you to read the whole discussion, really, please, and you will see that you don’t stand a chance on trying to defend you’re personal thought or Peruvian facts against International Sources, soon we will make a change, not in favor of Bolivia, in favor of the truth. and please don’t bother to answer this post, i know what you’re going to say Puno bla bla bla, and give me again a Peruvian newspaper as source, please don’t, instead, if you have something international, then that’s welcome, have everybody a good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.240.28 (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you like my new signature? I took Dentren's and Lupus's style. I thought it looked cool. OH, WAIT! Wikipedia is not a forum! So I recommend you to stop posting senseless things in the page.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look who has changed, ha ha seems to me Erebedhel thought you some manners after all, but seriously, you bulled me first and now you want me to buy that, who you are trying to fool, maybe, if you had started like this as a person committed to this page, this would have been different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.240.28 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed at all. Bullied you? I haven't bullied you at all. If you consider bullying me saying that Evo Morales and his government are a bunch worthless officials who like to use popular culture as a means to gain favor from their people; then you seriously need to get a life (I'm sure you're not Ekeko Morales). Or, at least get a Wikipedia account; but, then again, you might as well be Eberedel attempting to act as someone else. Either way, you keep creating pointless arguments, so shame on you.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there you go people, this is the kind of person who is in charge of this page, i mean, should we trust him, i don’t, and by the way, yeah my arguments might be poor but hey, the world goes in my favor, how??, well me and Eberedel have shown reliable resources, INTERNATIONAL RESOURSES, in case you didn’t notice, those are my arguments, but you, what you give, NEWSPAPERS, I mean come on, you tell me "shame on you", what’s that, take it seriously, your argument are not RELIABLE, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT SO YOU CAN GET IT, because I will, but I’ll say it one more time, focus please, PERUVIAN NEWSPAPERS AND LETTERS ARE NOT THE MEANS TO ASUME THAT PUNO IS THE BIRTH PLACE, hope you got it, and still waiting for a reliable source, please, me and all the people here don’t want to know what Peruvians Newspapers have to say, we want neutral non Peruvian or Bolivian facts, that’s is what this page is all about, not your patriotisms. Take care Marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.240.28 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I in charge of this page? Puno is where the cultural mixture of the Spanish dance and the native americans culture took place first, hence it's the birthplace of the dance. Nonetheless, what I see as astounding in your constant remarks is your necessity to bring in the idea that the governments of these nations are struggling for ownership of the dance. The point that should be taken here is that the dance does not belong to a government, but rather it belongs a community of native andean peoples known as the Aymara. Even if the corrupt Ekeko Morales and the ignorant Garcia want to slap each other a thousand times, the fact remains that the Diablada is a Native dance of the Altiplano; it's an Andean dance (Not a Bolivian dance, not a Peruvian dance, not a Chilean dance, not an Argentinean dance, etc.). Why don't you want to understand that? I think Dentren, Lupus, and me are the only ones who seem to be in agreement with this essential idea. My question is why does it bother you so much that the dance first took place in Juli, Puno? Why do you have to think that because it took place there, then it's a Peruvian dance? Why do you even think it's a Bolivian dance? Did the Republic of Peru or the Republic of Bolivia exist at that time? Think before you talk.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, Support your statements , i think I am dealing here with an adult not a child, I don’t care if Peru was the best country back then, if you don’t support you’re statements, is just your word, I am not taking into account your words, SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE DIABLADA WAS BORN IN PUNO WITH NON PERUBIAN LINKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.241.176 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to know that it's hard to find things about the Diablada that are non-Spanish. Most of the sources are either Bolivian and Peruvian, and it's important to use both of these in order to create the article. Wikipedia supports the idea of mixing sources. For instance, I think it's important to find a source that can be used to explain why Bolivia thinks the dance was invented in Oruro. Then this can be mixed with the idea that the dance first took place in Puno in the second paragraph. Like I said before, it really doesn't matter much where the dance started; what matters is that this dance does not belong to any country (especially since the modern borders came as a result of the mestizos and the whites; and not from the actual natives), and that they are part of a multinational culture.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill repeat it again, we gave you sources, International sources, look above and you’ll find plenty of them, here I give you two:

1. the definitions of the “Diablada” according to the Real academia Española “diablada. 1. f. Danza típica de la región de Oruro, en Bolivia, llamada así por la careta y el traje de diablo que usan los bailarines. You can check it out in the Real Academia Española webb page, 2009

2. the fact that the assistant director of UNESCO expressed his solidarity with Bolivia on this issue (look for it in the references number 12, it’s a non Bolivian or Peruvian newspaper, neutral)

there you go, I ve guided you to 2 sources as exaples as you asked, all NON Bolivian, sources, now show me and international organization that is reliable and neutral that shows Puno as the birth place, I am not asking for you’re thoughts or what maybe your grandmother told you, I just want an International reliable source that backs up your facts, THAT’S IT, AS SIMPLE AS THAT, A NEUTRAL RESOURCE, please if you intent to reply, please give me sources, links, something neutral (non Peruvian), , ill wait, ok marshal, take care

IMPORTANT!- I am not asking for English or Dutch, if you have Spanish then put it, I NEVER SAID ONLY ENGLISH.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.240.161 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You use a dictionary definition and claim that the UNESCO said something (when they officially have said nothing). Seriously?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I read the article about Freddy Arancibia Andrade's research and thought it was rather interesting. However, I think that this source has been misused in the article in order to represent something different than what Mr. Arancibia's points out. The argument I create here by Mr. Arancibia is that the Diablada has spiritual origins in Potosi; and at various points mentions that the dance was not created in Potosi. Here are some direct quotes:

• "“Allí nació su espacio ritual, mientras que su espacio de baile se encuentra en Oruro”, explicó el investigador."
• "'Its ritual space was born there, while its space as a dance is found in Oruro,' explained the investigator."

• "Esto cambió en 1904, cuando se les permitió bailar ante la Virgen del Socavón. “Esto supuso dejar atrás su cultura norte potosina y desde ese momento aparece la diablada como baile”, asegura."
• "This changed in 1904, when they were allowed to dance in front of the Virgin of Socavon. 'This would supposedly let them leave their North Potosi culture and from that moment the Diablada appears as a dance,' he asserts."

Now, I'm assuming Good Faith from Erebedel's edits; plus, the title of this article from "La Razon" is highly misleading. If you take a look at the title, it claims that the Diablada was invented in Potosi. However, on the sub-title, it explains that it's a ritual (religious) origin. So, I think that next time sources from La Razon are submitted, the whole thing should be carefully read. Moreover, in the Spanish wiki article it states that the Bolivian historian Julia Elena Fortún explains that the Diablada began to be danced in Oruro in 1789; and this goes completely against the idea that the dance was first introduced in 1904.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I just intended to show more points of views, in case of doubt my original writing was:

This one

The source comes from the Bolivian newspaper “La Razón” published on August 20, 2009

That’s based on the version of the anthropologist Freddy Arancibia Andrade; it’s nevertheless always open to debate. I consider that I was careful with the use of words to avoid what the title said “the Diablada was invented in Potosí” which could be considered misleading as Marshal thinks, so I wrote that.

“There are two versions regarding the first records of the place where the Spanish traditions and the native Andean beliefs mixed to form what is called Diablada today”.

The version of Juli 1576, belongs to the historian José Morales Serruto that can be found here:

Puno.com.

I'm open to suggestions and opinions. I think Dentren can gives us a good third opinion.

--Erebedhel (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that I'm taking the writings of professional people, such as historians and anthropologists, as facts. These people are especially important for these kind of research as they devote their life to these matters. Government officials and other people are also important, but they can't be compared in importance with professional historians or anthropologists (In this case, Groux and Garcia Belaunde are the main government officials speaking from both sides; but I don't think either of them are actually being honest but are rather playing politics). There's also this source from the Andean Parliment which is highly neutral; it says exactly the best thing it could say: The dance is neither Peruvian or Bolivian, it's from the Andean Altiplano.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I fail to understand where in this section we’re talking about Groux, Belaunde or ownership. We’re talking about Freddy Arancibia Andrade and José Morales Serruto and specifically that paragraph. --Erebedhel (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ricardo Arbulú also presents the idea that the Diablada was originated in Juli, Puno. So, it's not simply an idea from historian Morales Serruto.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complementing what Freddy Arancibia Andrade says there is Nicomedes Santa Cruz, the first source, he also says that:

The "Danza de los Diablos" or "Diablada" had in the zone of Potosí and later in the miner city of Oruro its starting point, regardless that nowadays there are over 250 locations of Bolivia and Peru where it's interpreted

— Nicomedes Santa Cruz

Page 285--Erebedhel (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you should take into account that good Nico did this report without taking into account information from the people of Puno. This is very classic of people from Lima who have a tendency to ignore the culture of their surrouding cities. Moreover, Nico was a self-taught black man who was an excellent speaker and poet, but in terms of recording information was nothing more than a journalist (Not a historian). For several years, Nico was an authority in the knowledge of Afro-Peruvian dances and other such things because he was among the first people who took the time to investigate by asking people who still remembered the old stories about how the dances were created. However, the problem is that nowadays actual historians are beginning to find out that many of the things that Nico presented were not as accurate as he thought they were. Nicomedes did not speak the Native American language and therefore never investigated much of anything in regards to them (However, I do think that he did a rather good investigation on how the Zamacueca also has Quechua roots). I suppose you can use him as a means to support the idea of Potosi; but Mr. Arancibia's article (once again) has nothing to do with the origin of the dance in Potosi. Arancibia only talks about the "spiritual origin" of the dance, not the actual origin of it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's just genius I have never thought that Nicomedes Santa Cruz only is respected for some things and for others not. That's perfect.--Erebedhel (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I try to explain to you something about Nicomedes Santa Cruz, a person whom I deeply respect, and yet you mock it by saying "that's perfect"?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider yourself more acknowledged than him to judge which parts of his book are correct and which aren't, I think you're disrespecting him. That phrase is in the very same paragraph as the Autos sacramentales quoted in the first paragraph (together with the version that the Diablada has Uru roots as well) so since there is no satisfactory explanation why my contribution should be reverted and changed like that I'm re-editing that part. Thank you.--Erebedhel (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you say I hate Bolivians, and now you say that I'm being disrespectful to Nicomedes Santa Cruz? What else are you going to say next, that I hate Peruvians? Just listen to yourself for a moment and then think about what you're writing. I especifically wrote in my response, "I suppose you can use him as a means to support the idea of Potosi." This is exactly what you did, but instead of using it appropiately you once again re-insert the erroneous sentence of the person who sets the dance as being born "spiritually" in Potosi and claim it to be saying that it started in Potosi. I've fixed this error again as by this time I'm no longer assuming that as a Good Faith edit. Please use sources correctly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to read and understand that the entire text I wrote belongs to the quoted part in the article, in the text I avoided to mention that it was created or anything the text is not biased and if you consider is not, request mediation, meanwhile you can't revert my edits.--Erebedhel (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you can get away with manipulating Wikipedia policy in order to protect your incorrect usage of sources, then you're certainly not aware of the complexity of this system. Bullying editors and threatening them, as you did in your edit summary, is not acceptable. Just as incorrectly using sources in order to push your POV is equally not acceptable.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let's an admin decide who violated the rules. It's not up to you--Erebedhel (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You're the one here accusing me of ownership and threatening me with the 3RR. I explained to you that you're using the source incorrectly, and yet you stubbornly continue to add it despite all of the explanations that I have provided in this discussion. Bullying wikipedians and attempting to use Wikipedia policy to your favor is no way to demonstrate that you're interested in improving this article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking you to read carefully what I wrote in the article, I tried to reason with you to show you that regardless you can have your observations to the newspaper I tried carefully to not use them. Only took what represented appropriate information, you opened this section I asked Dentren to give us his opinion yet you and only you spammed it bringing back politics when it was only about a paragraph instead of waiting till he have time to give us a third opinion, now it's too late he won't bother to read all the discussion again which I tried to avoid. Then you mentioned that other historian supported the Juli version. I mentioned the exact same paragraph from where you took the introduction of the text saying the same as the newspaper did. I didn't eliminate the Juli version I just added another theory, that's normal procedure when there are more versions of a same thing. I ask you to read the manual of Wikipedia about NPOV that's what it's recommended just explaining who say what and let the reader decide. If you want I can give you tomorrow a "Review" of each newspaper you used, to what? to start again with a 100kb discussion because you are not willing to consider that there are more versions and that what you believe is the only possible way. Do you think I didn't notice that it was you the one who changed the order of the photos and the beginning to put always first Peru? and that even though you ranted before to me for explaining you what I've read during the last months and I was just resuming it to you accusing me of "Original Investigation" now you bring again your concept of "dances with devils" and pretend to open sections of "variations" with other dances that have devils but aren't "Diabladas" based entirely because you saw the horns do you have any reference that says that those "dances with devils" are Diabladas? no because the one who made a hopeless attempt to say exactly that there were other dances with devils in Latin America and all were related (but not exactly the same) was me. So you don't have to say it textually but it's obvious that you have the intention to control this article, you think you have the authority to evaluate the sources and what others do, and you have an agenda here, that's disruptive editing. Now I'll leave you to destroy this article, but I think you should try to read what others tell you patiently because you show a dangerous pattern of lack of attention, you start arguing without really understand what it's written in front of you, a clear proof of that is the completely unnecessary mention to Groux and Belaunde above, and the very same reason this complete discussion started when I never said that because of the UNESCO mention traditional it's private property of Bolivia, actually I never interpreted by myself the words of the UNESCO I just quoted them, nevertheless you lost control and started a discussion with your head, well that's your problem, but I know that if you pretend to do an unilateral edition of this article when you lack of the capability to read a simple phrase without creating the wrong images in your head it wont have a good outcome. --Erebedhel (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's too long Pedro.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone that can help expand the section on La Tirana's Diablada. Is it different from the other Diabladas? If so, in what aspects is it different? I think we all know that the dance in La Tirana is derived from when Bolivia occupied the zone, but maybe there are differences from it that make it distinct from other Diablada dances.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.memoriachilena.cl/temas/dest.asp?id=folclor3diablada

http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/chungara/v38n1/art05.pdf (PDF)

--Erebedhel (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Afro-Peruvian dance that is a variation of the Diablada. I was thinking about creating a section called "Similar dances" and to include the Son de Los Diablos in it, but then I noticed that the Son is actually a regional variation created in Lima through the Afro-Peruvian community. Its roots are the Diablada that originated in the Altiplano. Now, I think that in Guatemala and other places there is a similar dance to the Diablada, but they have nothing to do with the one created in the Altiplano.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]