Talk:Contra dance/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pages: Talk:Contra dance and Contra dance

General

Good; I'm glad to see there's a page on contra dance in Wikipedia. I agree with all those improvements, and I'll help when and where I can. I think the page can be moved from contradance to contra dance since contra dance is, and has ever only been a redirect. If not, it's just a matter of asking an admin. I'll look into this. JesseW 05:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As you can see from the above message, I've requested this move at the proper page. Hopefully it won't be too much trouble. JesseW 05:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was much impressed by this WP, and was linking it in our dance newsletter, and was testing the address I was giving out, when I saw some details that needed changing, and I found out how easy it seems to be to edit. Then I found this page, where I see far more concern over contradance content is evident than in the entry itself. It seemed like the main article had been fairly neglected, so I made some changes before I saw all this, I hope I didn't mess something up. Tom Thoreau. By the way, the writer above this (Choreography section) has no business talking like that around folk dancing. Lawyers don't practice to improve the human experience and contradancers don't create for profit, though one or two may have tried, and then given up dancing and enrolled in law school and should be ashamed.
Tom, welcome to Wikipedia. Be Bold and make whatever changes are needed. This whole article has been a little neglected over the past few months. I think editors got turned off over the discussion of what the article's name should be. Most of the changes look good (ignoring the surprisingly contentious issue of name). --Ahc 15:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, Tom, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your contributions. Please be aware that just because you don't like lawyers does not negate the fact that (a) there are many fine lawyers and who are also fine contra dancers, musicians and callers, and more importantly (b) there are many musicians and callers who (attempt to) make their living bringing joy to people through dance. There are many books of choreography for sale, and many authors of those books frown on, or actively disallow, the publication of their creative works (e.g. in a wikibook). (Though I don't know anyone who minds having his or her dances shared thorugh the folk process, i.e. by copying down some choreography at a dance.) Depriving these people of a major source of their meager livelihood (e.g. the contents of choreography books) is a terrible thing and anyone who doesn't care about the well-being of the folk who bring them such joy "should be ashamed."

Improvements Needed *dealt with*

This page needs a number of improvements, some of which I'm already working on.

  1. The article is long enough to deserve section headers (added)
  2. The dance figures need to be explained - I'm working on that.
  3. Some of the language was unfortunately gender-specific, using "women" and "men". It really ought to be explained in terms the gender roles of "ladies" and "gents", with the explanation that both men and women can (and frequently do) take either gender role. I've fixed this.
  4. The early paragraphs are too region-specific, referring to "New England Contradance". While it's true that the modern revival of contra dance grew out of the New England tradition, the dance has spread far beyond its original geographic and stylistic roots. It's no longer specifically a New England dance form, and most contra dancers outside of New England simply use the term "contra dance". It also ignores the fact that contra dance also survived as a living dance form in the Appalachian mountains of Virginia and North Carolina.
  5. For that matter, the two-word form "contra dance" is much more commonly used than the one-word "contradance". It's unfortunate that the article is under the title "contradance" while the "contra dance" page is a redirect.
  6. The "History" section is far too short. It implies that American contra dance grew out of the French contredance, which it didn't. And a history of contra dance that lacks any mention of Ralph Page, Ted Sanella, and the whole 20th-century revival is incomplete. Major expansion is needed here.

McMullen 18:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "Overview" Essay

on august 11, a short essay was added to the start of the contra dance page. half an hour later it was removed; this started a back-and-forth still active at the time of this writing. constantly reverting edits can become a tad tedious, and it is my hope that the dispute can be resolved here. below are some of the issues I have in the addition; others may see different problems:

repetition: the key issues in the essay are

  • that contra dancers dance to have fun,
  • cooperation is important in contra dancing,
  • that contra dance lacks set footwork,
  • that contra dancers often make mistakes,
  • that contra dance lacks set footwork,
  • that dancers wear plain clothes
and do not wear perfumes,
  • that dancers may or may not sweat profusely,
  • that contra dancers dance to have fun
and do not do anything fancy,
  • that contra dancers dance in whatever way they feel,
  • and that though there are some dance forms designed to preserve a historic dance form contra dance is not an example of them.

the points repeat themselves, and indeed repeat the article as it stands already, with these exceptions: the explicit mention of cooperation, that mistakes are made, and the question of perfume. these shortcomings have been incorporated into the contra dance article (see my edit of august 12) (as for the final point, it seems to belong in the discussion "miscategorizations?," topic 7 on this page)

pov: there are numerous instances of opinions which suggest an experience with a limited number of contra dancing communities. statements such as 'mistakes are not a problem,' and 'nothing "to do with how many tricks you can do,"' are clear generalizations --there are certainly dances where mistakes are noticed and frowned (though it's certainly also true that there are dances where they aren't), and there are many flashy dancers ought there for whom "tricks" are vital to the dance-- and a statement like "the most important thing to know is..." is clear opinion.

tone: the content of the addition aside, the tone is different from the rest of the article, and as such it distracts (rather than reading like an encyclopedia article, the article now reads like a discussion). as has been discussed by various critics of wikipedia there is a great danger of not being professional. with some editing the material introduced by the addition can be seamlessly incorporated into the article (as mentioned above) -- Eitch 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscategorizations? *dealt with*

historical dance

  • I'm not part of the historical dance community (or I don't think of myself one, though if the following suggestion is not supported I guess I'll have to reconsider) but it seems to me that putting contra dance in historical dance is a miscategorization:
"Historical dances may be danced as performance, for pleasure at themed balls or dance clubs, as historical reenactment, or for musicological or historical research." (from historical dance)
Looking over the list of dances it appears that the wp criterion is closer to "dance which is not modern dance or which became popular before the 1950's." While contra dance does originate in historical dance --indeed, in a centuries-old historical dance form of the same name-- the form as we know it today (substantially different from the historical form) did not become popular until well after this cut-off.
  • Similarly, the "origins and history" section states that "[contra dance] came to be associated with the American folk dances, especially in New England" - in this case, it seems inappropriate to put contra dance in the european folk dances category. Eitch 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I like thinking about it as historical because it's oldfassion nature is something that really draws me and my friends to it. It reminds me of medieval dances and old Irish things. Contrafool 08:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, contra dancing today is significantly different from contra dancing even in the 1950's. Hearing no further objections, I've made the change (note also that this puts contra dance in line with other dances which might be considered its folk dance peers, e.g. clogging, morris, sword Eitch 05:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

european folk dancing

As contra dance now is not the contra dance brought over to the U.S. centuries ago, it seems that it would be better categorized an American folk dance (or Anglo-American folk dance, or non-Native American folk dance, etc). English country dance, after all, is not considered a French country dance. Now, I am not familiar with the European perception of contra dance's home, nor do I know whether this is a point debated by more professional dance historians.... Eitch 05:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Choreographies?

Would it be improper for Wikipedia to provide an article on choreographies? As far as I know, Contra dance (or however you want to spell it) choreographies are in the public domain, or at least the authors generally don't copyright them. While I would be happy with an "external link," I think a Wikipedia article would be useful as well, since it could be updated by many people. BobC 09:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds to me like something that would make more sense for wikibooks. --Ahc 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
This makes sense to me -- a Wikibook on Contra dance choreographies, with a link on this page (and, presumably, a link from the Wikibook back to this article). At the moment, there are two books in the "Dance" section of the "Arts" bookshelf, one on salsa and one on swing. If others are interested in such a project, please send email to this Wikipedia user account. I am highly unlikely to have great ideas on the layout of such a tome, or standards for describing the choreographies.--SFBADanceDude 04:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Warning: the phrase "generally don't copyright them" is a recipe for copyvio. Everything with a creative component, once put in tangible form, and unless explicitly placed in the public domain, has copyright protection in the US. Failing to put a copyright notice on it does not limit the creator's exclusive rights, it just means that when they sue you for the income you've deprived them of, they won't also get back the cost of having their lawyer make you do so.

--Jerzy·t 21:16, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Copyright issues aside for the moment, to me is seems that if people feel a collection of Choreographies is needed, it should be a wikibook. It would probably be similar to the Cookbook (although much smaller). --Ahc 19:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a discussion of the relationship between dance counts and musical measures, and also of the relationship between dance structure and musical structure. -- Adca 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The item about "weight" really has no place in the choreography section. It's an important term but belongs either in §3.3 (Terminology) or in an entire subsection of it's own. I'm going to move it to Terminology for now. -- Adca 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

On copyright of social dance choreography, note that U.S. copyright law recognized zero copyright in dances until January 1, 1978, and there is probably no or extremely limited copyright in social dance created since then. See the below section entitled: Copyright and Social Dance Choreography in the US. Yellowdesk 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Language and Style proposal

I would like to propose a gender-free convention for this page. How would people feel about using "lead" and "follow" instead of "ladies" and "gents?" Defenestrate

I disaggree, based on the fact that gender-free language is not generally used at dances (at least not those I've attened). I would suggest the article should match the standard conventions used at the events. --Ahc 05:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I so wasn't going to get involved in the debates surrounding the contradance article, but, well ... Ahc, I'm curious to know where you dance. At the dances I frequent in New England, the callers often use gender-free terms. Some people dance either role. I'm not sure whether the common usage in one area of the country warrants a change for the entire article, but perhaps there's nothing wrong with interspersing the terms. --Jkbaum 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I dance primarily in New England as well, and in my experience, even in dances that are specifically labelled "gender free", callers tend to use "ladies" and "gents" (which acknowledging that these are roles, and that for example a woman can be in the "gent" role). I've danced in Cambridge MA, at Falcon Ridge Folk Festival, and at Glen Echo. I really can't remember any consistent use of "lead" and "follow" at any of these venues when I've been there. Those words get used sometimes, perhaps, by some callers, so perhaps the statement "the callers often use gender-free terms" is true in some sense, but ladies/gents is clearly the standard in my experience.Cos 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ladies and Gents" are traditional in contra dance, and are considered gender neutral in the context of the contra dance. Also, there is no clear 'lead' and 'follow' as there is in ballroom dance, so the term would be confusing.--Livecontra 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I honor that you people are active contra dancers and come here from that practice or tradition... and a wikipedia article in no way shape or form needs to or should conform to the style or traditions of what it is reporting on.... mention those traditions and styles? yup... emulate them? no way! Sethie 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized and Very Deficient Photographs

Several individuals have pointed out that they are identifiable in pictures that appear on the the contra dance page and they insist that the pictures be removed; they did not and will not give their permission to appear in pictures there, and the person who put the pictures there was wrong to put them in without authorization. Furthermore, the photographs are fuzzy and, among other things, do not show the correct posture for the swing and/or do not show any useful information. We therefore have removed them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.15.208 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 August 2006

The pictures were poor quality, so removing them was not a problem. However, it is my understanding that if you go out in public you have no expectation of privacy, and therefore pictures of you can be used anyway the photographer chooses; they do NOT require authorization by the subjects. Think of the images that the news media use of people milling around at public events, they do not then stop all those people and ask for permission to broadcast the tape. If someone takes you picture in public that is their picture to do with as they please. --Ahc 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you can take pictures in public and generally use them freely(except for children). As a matter of courtesy, I think generally if someone asks for their picture to be removed, wikipedia should honor that request. 75.28.162.189 05:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

contra dance organizations

The recent addition of some local contra dance organizations looks to me like a dangerous direction for this page to take: There are at the least, as cataloged in the linked "Contra Dance Links" and Ted Crane's "Database," several hundred of contra dance organizations. We could move it to a new "Contra Dance Organization" article, but it is my feeling that such a listing should be left in the hands of the devoted websites; one purpose of WP is to collect all available information on a subject, but this does not mean duplicating extant well-done resources. -- Eitch 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to delete any dance associations that are not national in scope, leaving CDSS on the page. CDSS probably has all of the mentioned groups on their web page. - Yellowdesk 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Done - I went to the CDSS site, and took the link (NEFFA LinkFest) they had. --Eitch 19:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

move choreography to own article?

Should we move the choreography section (the figures) to its own WP article. The contra dance article is very long, pushing the limit of Featured Article criterion 4, but the article is well-written and cannot be cut down without sacrificing good content. A half or third of the article's length is due to the choreography section. I'm not sure how I feel about this proposal myself - certainly your typical non-dancer who comes to WP to find out what contra dancing is is probably not too concerned with how to see-saw, but then of course they're probably also not worried about set formations either. Thoughts? --Eitch 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonably good idea. I think the subsections could probably be effectively broken into their own article (Contra Dance Figures or some such). I'll place the split template on there for now and let's see how the discussion progresses. --Ahc 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You may find that moving the choreography section motivates moving the detailed section the "Form of a contra dance" along with it. Perhaps not a bad thing, but you may be undertaking a complete re-write of the remaining article. Perhaps the topic is "What should this article look like to someone who knows nothing about the topic? - Yellowdesk 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was sort of getting at too - I don't think much rewriting would be necessary, but now that I look again it is nice to have all of the information concentrated in one place. It means the article is longer than some, but (today at least) I don't think it's a problem. --Eitch 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Just dropped by. When I look at this article and it's length, the first thing I think of moving is the formations, especially given the charts. I'm not saying they are bad, just.... well, if I knew nothing of contra dancing and came to this article, I would be maybe a bit overwhelmed, and certainly skip that section. Sethie 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think moving them sounds good. The first thing someone will want to know is more what is the dance and a general feel for what it is like. I feel that a description of the figures is a step up from that, still useful, but also perhaps a bit overwhelming. Loggie 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hearing nothing but support, I've made new "Contra dance form" and "Contra dance choreography" articles. No content has been changed in moving text from this article to the new ones (with the exception of changing the header depths); no change has been made to the "choreography" section of this article; minor changes were made to the "form" section of this article (fixing now-false "see below"'s and the like). (I see this has freed us of the "danger! large article!" warning :) -- Eitch 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Callers and dance composers proliferation

It looks like the Contra dance#Callers and dance composers section is in danger of proliferating, as the dance organizations section once did. Some Possibilities:

  • Don't have such a section
  • List only deceased influential caller/composers
  • Have a prose section on influential callers/comosers (with the same proliferation dangers)
  • List only callers that have a wiki page
  • Cite some external page that does review callers/composers

-- Yellowdesk 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for the first. This problem has continued to worsen over the last few months, and it seems like we should try to do something about it. --Ahc 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me the best long-term solution is to require citations to sources, since new reader/editors will keep reviving the section and list. A review of twenty years of CDSS's journals, and of various callers' books would generate something worthwhile, perhaps even make for a stand-alone article. But it would be a lot of effort to accomplish. -- Yellowdesk 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the section will keep coming back, that's some of why I like the talk pages, you can send people to review old discussions of the matter. If someone wants to try to assemble an exhustive list and create an article for it, I say go for it, but I'm concerned here that people are going to start using it as a way of advertising their services. --Ahc 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Barefoot dancing

Regarding the edit of "20:40, 28 August 2007 Ghmarkie" to the "Contra dance events" section, I'm curious as to how common it is to dance barefoot. Is this widespread geographically for certain types of events, or mostly a regional practice? --rich<Rich Janis 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)>

I see it quite a lot. It's pretty hard on the foot, but those who choose it do not seem to mind. It definitely has nothing to do with the type of event, the ones who choose to dance barefoot tend to always dance barefoot. 199.125.109.119 05:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of people (again)

The picture of long lines in Seattle was unauthorized by me and other people in the picture and we insist that it be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.15.208 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 October 2007

There is no such thing as unauthorizing a photo. Don't go to the dance if you don't want to be photographed. However there are a thousand other dance photos that can be used. 199.125.109.119 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier (again, following a comment by 69.17.15.208; see above), with the decision that we might as well honor people's wishes to have pictures of them removed. The legality and WP position are unclear— see Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Taking_pictures_of_people for and Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Images_of_people. Discussing this here won't have much impact beyond this article… I'd recommend that anyone interested get involved in those discussions or contact the editors who have been involved in them. — eitch 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What's even more unusual is that the same person who uploaded the photo now doesn't want it to be used. Sooo, don't upload a photo if you don't want it to be used. Licenses are irrevocable. 199.125.109.119 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I don't mind this being trimmed so much, other than Ted Sannella, who only appears in the reference section, shouldn't he be in the see also section if there is no link in the main article? 199.125.109.33 (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you found the best approach, by mentioning him within the article. Rich Janis (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

external links and TOC

I don't want to just go revert, so I thought I'd say here: I think putting all of the categories of external links in the table of contents just makes the TOC too long, and makes it look like half of the information available in the article is the list of external links. I put the 'find North American dances' in the TOC figuring that a bunch of people coming to the article might be looking for that. Now I don't think that was a good idea. I think now that none of the external links categories should be in the TOC, so as to not take up so much space.— eitch 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree- I don't think they should be in the TOC. I haven't had a chance to look through them, but there do appear (at a brief glance) to be quite a few- is there any link trimming that could/should be done? Loggie (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

The Terminology section has bugged me for some time. Sorry, Eitch, but it just strikes me as unencyclopedic (w/o trying to be specific about what that means). So, I'm deleting this section. The terms are already sufficiently emphasized in context in these three articles.

The only exception is the term weight, which I feel needs more of a "how-to" description that should be in the article where the term is used, so I'm moving its description to the Contra dance choreography article and modifying it based on a source that I'll cite. I realize that Adca removed this description from the choreography section of this article, but w/o arguing whether it is or is not a choreographic term, the simple fact is that it appears in context only in the choreography article. I'm dropping the centripetal force reference because it doesn't seem to meet the standard of significantly adding to readers' understanding of the topic.

Rich Janis 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Rich. I just loom over this article because I'm a horrible horrible procrastinator, and it's much more fun than reverting vandalism to obscure articles.
I agree that the section is no longer necessary. It was originally an attempt to make reading the (very long) article easier— you could read along, say "Wait I think I remember reading that term somewhere way back" and just pop down to the bottom for the definition. The c.d. articles are much more user-friendly now. — eitch 18:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Culture section *dealt with*

  1. I (To_Serve_Man) think that we ought to add a new section on contra dance culture, to which issues of changing partners, accepting the first invitation, etc., should be moved. Further, I would like to see some discussion of the important characteristic of playfulness, as well as flirtation which, when combined with the fact that alcohol consumption is not part of the dance culture, distinguishes contra dance from many other dance forms where anxiety plays a large role. In many forms of dance, one finds that drinking plays a significant role in its culture, where it is used to lower inhibitions and the anxiety of asking a partner to dance, whereas the culture of playfulness surrounding contra dance is what I believe makes it so compelling and unique.

I think a culture section is a good idea.

Can we make reference to the type of music usually played. Is live old time music the best description. 75.28.162.189 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we need this section. There are certain elements which set the music played at contra dances apart from the same music (whether it leans more towards old timey, québécois, irish, etc) when the musicians aren't dance musicians. I'll work on a draft of something... are any of the rest of you reading this c.d. musicians? --Eitch 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Music √, partnering √, alcohol √. We now have everything but the playfulness/flirtation/everyone hugging/friends as soon as you're introduced aspects. — eitch 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't like the description of the music as being 'old time' music. I'm fairly active in the Massachusetts contradance community (usually contradancing at least once a week) and know many of the bands (Notorious and Crowfoot, for examples) write some of their own material or use more modern music, like "Bei mir bist du schoen." (While to some people that is 'old time,' 'old time' often means older music.) Some contradances feature popular modern music, but those are less common, at least in New England. I think 'folk' music is a better generic term. The way the music is described in the article now as mostly being reels and jigs from the 1800s maps pretty well to what most of the contradance musicians I know play at the dances. Jkbaum (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
(The Old Time suggestion was Jan 07, long before what's there now was added) — eitch 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Same as Contradanza? *dealt with*

In Spain and Cuba especially they have Contradanza (just a redirect here for now). Are they the same, related, or what? To be comprehensive, this article should cover that if it is related. I know nothing about it, but had the feeling they were related. Thanks all - Taxman 21:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just saw: it isn't the same, and contradanza hasn't redirected for a year and a half. — eitch 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

19th-20th Century History *dealt with*

There seems to be a bit of a gap in the history section missing between the 1700's and 2005. Could someone add at least a bit about dancing in New England in the 19th century, and Ralph Page's and Dudley Laufman's role in preserving and reviving contra dancing? Also perhaps a comparison between the traditional dances (active and inactive) and the modern dances (symmetrical)? 199.125.109.11 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A minor shortcoming - what's three hundred years? =) Oy yoi. Ditto my response to the choreographies discussion just above this. I recently found a few pages of notes from antique contra dance books - here's to hoping I type it up soon! --Eitch 05:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the mention of my name (Tony Parkes) from the History section. This is not false modesty; Ted Sannella and Dudley Laufman were the prime movers behind the 1960s revival of contra dancing, well before I came along. I may have been the first of my generation to take up contra calling, but only by a few months; a lot of good people started soon after I did, and I don't think I should get special mention. Tparkes (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Video

I see that there are at least two videos of the Peterborough Snow Ball this year, and one from last year, along with some from the Florida Snow Ball at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4WuzxHrZX4 199.125.109.92 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

factual error in "Music" section of article *dealt with*

Quote from the article: "A set might start with a tune in G, switch to a tune in D, and end with a tune in Em. Here, D is related to G as its dominant (5th), while D and Em (dorian) share a key signature of two sharps."

Actually, G and Em share a key signature - 1 sharp. D shares a key signature with Bm - 2 sharps.

I'm not sure how best to correct this, because I don't know whether the author meant to say that G and Em share a key signature or whether the author meant to say that the set might start in G, switch to D and end in Bm.

I have therefore not made an edit, but someone needs to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianKnight (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical "dorian" is important here. If you look at dorian mode you'll see that it's the same as the standard ("natural" or "aeolian") minor but with a raised sixth. So D and Em (dorian) really do share a key signature. Dorian minors and mixolydian majors, with one more and one less sharp (respectively) than expected, are common in contra dance music. Jeff (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and Social Dance Choreography in the US

Following up on the some prior (now in the archive) incorrect worries about copyright (in the 'Choreographies?' section). Choreography, and Social Dance Choreography are special cases in US copyright law. Here's why:

In the US, by a California Federal Circuit Court decision in 1867 ( Martinetti v. Maguire, C.C.Cal.1867, 16 F.Cas. 920, No. 9173.), dance choreography (whether performance or social dance) was excluded from the ambit of copyright, since the law in effect then did not contemplate dance choreography, and the constitution merely states (in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8):

(The Congress shall have Power…) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Since staged ballet (the choreography under question in the case before that Federal Court) was determined by the court to be neither a "science" nor "useful art," all choreography failed to merit copyright in the US, without an enabling Congressional law. The settled law later became that a dance might obtain copyright status as an integral part of a "dramatic work." There are also instances where the US copyright office in the 20th century rejected attempts to register a ballet. Hence all dance choreography published before the changes in the US copyright law enacted in 1976, and coming into effect in January 1, 1978 are in the public domain. The Copyright act of 1976 contemplated copyright for choreography for the first time in these sections:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Sect. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) (4) pantomimes and choreographic works

But the report of the Judiciary committee that reported the bill out has this interesting qualification. Here's an excerpt from the legislative history, specifically excluding "social dance steps" from coverage within the term "choreographic works":

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
House Commission on the Judiciary
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
94th Congress, 2nd Session (1976)
... Of the seven items listed, four are defined in section 101. The three undefined categories - 'musical works,' 'dramatic works,' and 'pantomimes and choreographic works' - have fairly settled meanings. There is no need, for example, to specify the copyrightability of electronic or concrete music in the statute since the form of a work would no longer be of any importance, nor is it necessary to specify that 'choreographic works' do not include social dance steps and simple routines.

Further, also within the copyright law, from section 102 :

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

I realize some specific citations are in order on this topic. To come...perhaps. Yellowdesk 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review; Citations

What do people think of obtaining a couple of outside reviews of Contra dance? At Wikipedia:Peer_review. The article is pretty stable, although lacking almost all citation to published works demonstrating that the information is not "original research." It would certainly point out what directions...if any, are desirable, from "experienced outsider non-contra-dancers." -- Yellowdesk 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One of my amusements while on vacation is working on a —I wouldn't say "big," but maybe "biggish"— addition to the article. I don't expect it to be controversial, but it may well inspire further additions (not to mention the ever-amusing stylistic exchanges (e.g)). So… I think it's a good idea, but let's hold off for a bit. --Eitch 04:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure -- Yellowdesk 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That was over two years ago, and I still haven't done that addition. I'm not exactly sure what I'd had in mind, even.
This article's come a long way since late 2006. As far as citations go, things look good to me with the exception of the mid-18th to mid-19th century history paragraph. For the rest of it, the only problem obvious to me is the N/POV issue around booking ahead.
What do you think of getting peer reviewed? We could start with WP:PR, or go directly to the Dance wikiproject to get rated on quality and importance. — eitch 05:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Took off the {{refimprove}} template (this edit) — there are now seventeen inline citations and thirteen further references, compared to the five references (none of them inline) we had when the template was added (this edit) which, though we should definitely keep on adding references, is not at all shabby, I'd say. — eitch 09:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Choreographies and choreographers

How about someone adding a description of the role of choreographers/composers and the relative prevalence of modern versus traditional choreographies?

In the contra dancing that I've done, mostly in California, I've had the impression that quite a few of the dances are modern. This is a casual impression based partly on the occasional announcement of a choreographer's name; it's also based on the fact that we do mostly improper dances, and my impression that the traditional body of contra dances consists mostly of proper dances.

--Rich Janis 02:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, depending on the dance series, community and venue, about 95% of dances done these days were composed in the last fifty years, and probably most of those were composed in the last 25 years. -- Yellowdesk 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is, in part, the topic of the famed Big Addition I been "working" on for months now (the one I mentioned when we were thinking of going for FA status). Sounds like I ought to get on that. =) --Eitch 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
An opportunity for some genuine citation, perhaps? The couple of Ted Sannella books, and those by Larry Jennings (available via CDSS), and several others, would be welcome sources to cite. -- Yellowdesk 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Allemande vs. alamande

Since its inception, this article has used the word allemande to refer to a basic dance figure. The Allemande article seems to describe it as more of a dance than just a figure within a dance; it also states (from edit 15:43, 29 June 2006 128.192.54.69),

in contra dance it is spelled alamand (or alamande) - since it is derived from the French "a la mande" - by the hand.

However, that same editor wikilinked the word Allemande in this Contra dance article to the Allemande article without changing or further commenting on the spelling used here. Of course, variant spellings are commonplace for words that go back hundreds of years, and many websites use both spellings (e.g., [1]).

Does anyone have more info about these variant spellings? Are these two truly interchangeable? Is one spelling correct (or "more correct"?) for contra? Are corrections in order to either the Allemande article, or to this Contra dance article and its associated Contra dance choreography article? Or, is this whole issue a waste of time?

Thanks, -Rich <Rich Janis 08:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)>

That specific edit to Allemande was actually dated 2006-08-19T23:53:38. Its wording was modified in the revision of 2007-05-31T16:55:34 and then removed entirely in the revision of 2007-11-11T21:23:22. (And good riddance.)
Ralph Page, Ted Sannella, Herbie Gaudreau, Don Armstrong, Larry Jennings, and Tony Parkes all spell[ed] it "allemande". No citation was given for the assertion that "in contra dance it is spelled alamand (or alamande)" and I doubt one exists.
Jmdyck (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Contra Corners Diagram

There's a bit of a disagreement over two figures illustrating contra corners. I'd like to know what people prefer (on the Contra dance choreography page).--Eyrian 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That of User:Eyrian
That of User:Eitch
Another proposal by Eitch
(Refered to in discussion starting with Eitch's 00:00 24 May (UTC) post)
A nowhere near as spiffy looking proposal of User:Loggie and sister
An even less spiffy sketch, by Eitch
The first is more descriptive, particularly if you mention that the "A" stands for "allemande." Lifthra 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I was thinking:
  • My uncontroversial comments:
    • The path representations of the first corner allemandes are allemande rights, as are the color codings for the #1 woman's corner allemandes.
    • The the set diagrams and (assuming across-the-set heys as described in the text and as done, I'd estimate, ≥99% of the time) the hey diagram have the sets running left-to-right.
  • Visual representation theory:
    • Maximize the amount of data while eliminating meaningless features (cf. Tufte's High Data:Ink maxim). i) Why use grey for neutral when we can use white? ii) The male/female symbols are redundant with the squares/circles - one symbol for role is enough. iii) The black arrows carry the same information as the final arrow heads on the colored paths. iv) The looping paths, the L/Rs, and the color coding of the As all mean the same thing.
    • The diagram complements the text and so need not include everything, especially if inclusion is at the risk of making the diagram hard to read. I feel the criss-crossing lines needed to show the correct first corner allemandes would do this, and that the partner allemandes already do this for the casual reader. (It's pretty anazzy looking, though)
I have an idea for how to incorporate allemande direction into my version - I'll try to post it here tomorrow. --Eitch 05:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the orientation, I have danced both forms, and I simply chose the orientation that seemed most natural, and would best fit on the page. Rotations are a simple matter, though.
I chose grey for the inactive couples because it is commonly understood to mean inactive.
There are crosschecked gender symbols because using only squares/circles makes the notation more confusing for beginners, while using the same outer symbol makes them less differentiable in a longer view. I feel the intermediate arrows keep things clear over a long path.
The balance between text/diagram is a matter of taste. I chose a diagram that was almost entirely self-contained. --Eyrian 06:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just uploaded another possibility. Again, switching the orientation would be an easy change, as would using grey and white instead of "1"s and "2"s. Thoughts, o populace? --Eitch 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think things get lost in the center. --Eyrian 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts, for what they are worth: For actually containing all the information, I prefer Eyrian's. It tells what hand to use for the allemands, which requires thought from the new version of Eitch's. However, I find it rather intimidating. I really like the new version of Eitch's, but I'm not sure how clear it is. I prefer the other orientation, and I like having the 'L' and 'R' for the allemandes. I also do like the male and female symbols, because the roles are still refered to with genders, even if the gender doesn't really matter. Do with these thoughts what you will. Loggie 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My sister's thoughts: her prefered diagram would be a mix of Eyrian's and Eitch's first. She liked the gender symbols, liked the different color for the inactives. She likes having the R and L. Her suggestion was to have the path line going through the inactive's square/circle do demonstrate interaction with the inactive. Her comment was that having the path line going around the inactive looks like the person just walks around the inactive, and doesn't interact. Her suggestion for the center was to put a circle there with A R. Loggie 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that about the line going around the inactives. Having the actives go inside the inactives is a bit weird though, don't you think? =) Loggie, you have the first and second contra corners switched, and making the change would produce Eyrian's diagram. What about something like Image:Contra_corners-5.JPG, shown at the right - following Loggie's sister, it's a combination of Eyrian and Eitch1. A final version would probably even have room to say "allemande left" instead of "al."
My Tuftian sensibilities are still offended by double-coding the genders (Loggie, my versions do still have gender symbols - the circles and squares commonly used in contra and square notation). Coincidentally, graphite and nonphoto blue gives us the color scheme used in change ringing (for those who like me find they're forgetting to learn new things from wp, getting all caught up instead in editing). I suppose for the sake of the color blind we shouldn't be using red and green. --Eitch 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooops. I thought something looked a little odd about my diagram. I like the new sketch though. Loggie 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am being too picky, but one diagram is rotated 90 deg from the other. Would it be better to change one? 199.125.109.11 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I missed this discussion when it was current, but now that I've seen the implementation, I have some comments.

  • After looking at the "Hey For Four" and "Contra-Corners" diagrams, both of which display the contra lines horizontally (left-right) on the page, I then clicked to "the more detailed diagram" with the Contra_corners.svg image displaying the contra lines vertically. OK, I'll admit, this re-orientation wasn't a problem, but it was a distraction. Orientating the diagram horizontally might be worthwhile, at least for the benefit of new dancers. So, count this as a second to 199's suggestion. Eyrian, if you have the time and inclination to make the change, it would also make that diagram consistent with the orientation of the text diagrams on the Contra dance form page. (My "disorientation" may or may not have been related to my amazement--the diagram is impressive, especially at that size.)
  • Another issue with Eyrian's diagram is more important to me, and I see that Eitch already noted it: "The path representations of the first corner allemandes are allemande rights." Since the A-sub-L for allemande left is correct, there remains only the question of why the path direction is wrong. I imagine that it might be to avoid having a path line cross itself (perhaps that's what Eitch meant by "...the criss-crossing lines needed to show the correct first corner allemandes..."). However, graphical convenience is not more important than accuracy; also, such criss-crossing is not needed, if another change is made: replace the double lines with single lines, at least for the first corner allemandes. Eitch's diagram already avoids that particular criss-crossing, and the Contra_corners-5.JPG diagram avoids all criss-crossing.
  • I hate to sound as though I'm ragging on Eyrian's diagram, particularly since I love its maze-like quality. It does bother me in one more way, though: the color shading of the As. The time that I spent trying to interpret its significance was not worthwhile. Even after reading Eitch's comment that "The looping paths, the L/Rs, and the color coding of the As all mean the same thing", I can't see how that "works", even if the color shading bears the same error as the path lines (which then elevates this issue in importance). Eyrian, even if you can explain it to me, the need for an explanation is reason enough to eliminate that feature. Also, if Eitch's comment is correct, then wouldn't the meaning of the color shading of the As be dependent on the path lines? If so, that would make it not only a third symbol for one piece of information, but one that is dependent on another symbol--a releationship that adds effort to its interpretation. Wait; I think I finally figured out why the current color shading of the As cannot work. (Oh, no, this paragraph is getting even longer--and just as I thought I was done!) The words "right" and "left" in the allemande refer to rotational direction (CW or CCW), which the path lines do show. However, the color shading of the As reflects only the static positional distinction between right and left. Thus, while both dancers move in the same rotational direction, their respective color shadings do not occupy the same side of the A. Of course, you could fix that, but the result would look even more confusing and still not resolve the other issues.

This began, believe it or not, as a quick comment about the horizontal-vs-vertical orientation. The more I looked, though, the more I found to discuss. I think this might be the most time-consuming comment I've ever made on WP, and I now feel that the underlying issue might be that we shouldn't have a "more detailed diagram" when all the details are already covered in the text & diagram within the article. I'm still open on this point, but, at the very least, we must soon ensure that readers are not confused by known errors.
--rich<Rich Janis 06:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)>

Stubs needed

Can someone please create stubs for each of the bands, callers, and musicians?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.109.137 (talk • contribs) 22:08, July 30, 2007

People

Bands

Events

I think they'd be quickly deleted without references to independent, reliable sources. Perhaps you could provide a few? --Eyrian 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to go finding third party links right now for all of what I'm adding (though I'd be willing to bet most, if not all, have them), but if nothing else, at least it's a (start of a) list of missing pages for someone to work from if their mind goes blank for a topic. Bbik★

Gender-neutral terms

"Couples consist of one lead (also gentleman, or simply gent) and one follow (or lady)." Lead and follow? Where did that come from? That sounds like Western Square dance terminology, not contra dance terminology. No one leads in contra dances, other than very rarely. If anything the lady does the leading, as in a ladies chain or in a hey. How about, "Couples consist of two people, traditionally but not necessarily one male and one female, referred to as the gent or gentleman and lady." 199.125.109.119 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just now saw this comment that explains the recent back-and-forth. Lead and follow are the terms used in gender-free dances. — eitch 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? All I have seen is bands and bare. Doesn't need to be in the main article, which doesn't even mention gender-free dances. Like I said, no one leads in contra dancing. That is a ballroom (etc.) dance term indicating which partner is leading and which is following. One caller talked about teaching kids, which are inherently gender-free, cause all the boys have cootees or is it the other way around, so what they do is have the kids pick two nouns, and half of them become one and half the other. The labels in contra dancing are not dominant/subservient, they are just "the person on the left and the person on the right at the end of a swing". 199.125.109.82 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe "bands" and "bares" is provincial--although a cool idea!--and that different groups simply use different names. I can personally attest, after a couple of years of contra dancing, that simply using "gents" and "ladies" is fairly common. This makes sense if you consider that, even in a mixed-gender dance night, any given dance will often involve at least one couple that is same-sex or is dancing with swapped roles. Lexspoon (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential for edit wars

On 29 April 2019 (at 22:24), an unnamed editor made changes to the section Gender-neutral Trends in Contra Dance Culture. I was the editor who originally wrote those lines, and I see that the changes made by this unnamed editor actually make the statement more correct, but may mask the fact that, historically, gents were always male, ladies were always female, but that now these terms are used to indicate the dancer's role, not their biological gender. These changes reflect a culture war that is going on in the contra dance community concerning the terminology used in the calling of dances, as well as the practices of some more advanced dancers such as men dancing with men, partners swapping roles repeatedly mid-dance (it's fun!), and other practices that upset the status quo, and make many older dancers uncomfortable. A plurality of the dancers who do this are younger, but many older dancers do it too; I'm 66, and am happy to say I do all of these disruptive activities. When I have time (and if somebody else doesn't do it first), I will attempt to tactfully edit this paragraph, and do it maintaining NPOV. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

history of double progressions in contra dancing

The 'history' section implies that double progression dances were added some time in the 70s. I imagine that in English country dance they go back further than that… when did they show up in contra dance? — eitch 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This history[7] says they were popularized by Herbie Gaudreau, although it does not give any dates. By the way there is clearly no such thing as "western style contra dancing" (in 1999 at one dance "they had live music in the contra hall, and therefore a lot of traditional style contra dancers attended"). Western style square dancing yes, western style swing dancing yes, western style contra - emphatically no. This one[8] says that becket formation was popularized in the 1970s, after Becket Reel, written (or "devised") in the 1950s by the same Herbie Gaudreau. This reference[9] gives 1971 as the publication date for Herbie Gaudreau's book Modern Contra Dancing, a collection of 50 dances. Tony Parkes suggests[10] that Al Olson came up with the name Becket formation in the 1970s. The same reference asks if Shadrack's Delight, written in 1972 was in fact the first symmetrical dance (or "equal" dance). Note: Since the reference is 10 years old I would have to say that it is. 199.125.109.82 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your first citation, the one which evidences Gaudreau's role in popularizing double progressions, is a broken link.
Is there an online or computer-file version of the piece by Gaudreau you've cited in the main article? If not, could you add quote to the citation (as in the OED citation)?
"In the fin de siècle era from 1880 to 1900, folk dancing was neglected in Europe and in America. But then Cecil Sharp in England began to research the old English country dances, both from actual dancing in rural communities, and from books of the Playford era. This eventually led to the foundation of the English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS). In the Twenties, Henry Ford brought the New England dancing master Benjamin Lovett to Detroit to revitalize old-fashioned dancing. Soon after this, Lloyd Shaw, a school principal in Colorado, began to research square dancing at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, and made the USA aware of their heritage. The ensuing boom of squaredancing during the Forties and Fifties also kindled an increased interest in contra dancing. The changing style of square dancing demanded a change in the style of contra dancing too. Alternate duple minor sets became the rule. The distinction between the active and inactive couples became less obvious or was avoided. Herbie Gaudreau, a square dance caller and contra enthusiast, wrote a lot of 'modern contras' and popularized features like double progression, automatic cross-over and the Becket formation. The leading authority in the field of contra dancing, however, was undoubtedly Ralph Page, a man who had learned contra prompting in an unbroken family tradition." http://www.heinerfischle.de/history/c-history.htm 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the reference is ten years old you would have to say it is what?
Uncontested that Shadrack's Delight is the first of this type. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As for regional contra dance styles (and I don't know what brought this up): they certainly exist. That is different from drawing an analogy (traditional square dance):(Modern Western square dance)::(east coast contra dance):(western contra dance), or (East Coast Swing):(West Coast Swing)::(east coast contra dance):(west coast contra dance). Modern Western square dancing is complex, instituted thing with rules and levels, and traditional square dance has none of that; west coast and east coast contra dance events are the same. Western Coast Swing has different basic steps from East Coast Swing; contra dancing in different regions of, say, the US doesn't differ in its fundamentals. Nevertheless, the feel and experience of dancing with a dancing with a contra dancer from the west coast is noticeably different from dancing with a contra dancer from the northeast which is different again from dancing with someone from the southeast (put another way, there are regional contra dance styles, of which one is from the west coast). — eitch 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I would contest that one is just a better dancer than the other and I won't say which part of the country they are from. I know I met some very smooth dancers in Palo Alto, California, and when I asked them how long they had been dancing, they said, about three months. You can go up and down a contra line and meet less than two really smooth dancers in most parts of the country. Contra dancing does not have any set footwork, so learning it is, well, non-existent. On the other hand there are actually workshops teaching how to make smooth transitions from one figure to the next - ladies chain to swing, left hand star to swing, etc. One of the mistakes that beginners make is turning awkward directions to get to the next position. Dancers with a background in dance (ballet or ballroom) tend to adapt easily to excellent contra dancers, without going through a lot of awkwardness. I have to agree that the southern mountain dances are different from the northeast - so much so that I was almost going to mention it, but it is the southern mountain squares that are actually different, not the contras. Contrary to all logic they are faster than the northern squares. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of clarifications: (1) There is indeed a "western contra" style, and I'm not talking about Modern Urban Contra as done on the west coast vs. the east coast. Some of the modern "western" square dance people - who like the phrasing and relaxed feel of contras vs. modern squares - have formed clubs with mostly-contra or all-contra programs. They have kept many aspects of M"W"SD (the club structure, the dress code, the recorded music), and they tend to come in couples and dance together all night. It is absolutely true that there has been a culture clash when T-shirted "traditional" contra dancers have entered the contra hall at some National Square Dance Conventions. (2) I never meant to ask whether my "Shadrack's Delight" (1972) was the first symmetrical or equal contra dance; I knew it wasn't, as all of Herbie Gaudreau's dances are older. What I meant to ask was whether it was the first non-Becket contra to have everyone swinging partner simultaneously. Since asking, I've realized that it wasn't; Rod Linnell, in his "Verona's Favorite," used the same gimmick (have the gents cross to swing partner on the lady's side, then get everyone back with a half chain and a half right and left). I forget when he wrote it, but he died in 1966, so it was well before Shadrack. Tparkes (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

history of dance camps

This topic began as a continuation of the "history of double progressions" topic, from which it was later separated. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More dance history. I think the sentence on the Folk Festival and Pinewoods should be moved back earlier. It was put into the 50s section on purpose because at that time they served as a focal point for callers. Today there are dozens of similar camps and the Flurry is bigger than the Folk Festival. Also there are lots of dawn dances, due to the increased popularity of contra dancing. NEFFA dates from 1944[11] and Pinewoods from 1933.[12] Today I never see any of the most popular callers at NEFFA, presumably because it is an all volunteer festival. Rather than NEFFA being a focal point today, most people don't go there because it is too crowded. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess 199.125.109.119 thinks Lisa Greenleaf is not popular. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why's it crowded if no one goes? — eitch 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You never heard of Yogi Berra saying that? "No one ever goes there anymore, because it is too crowded." The point actually is that there are more contra dancers today, and in more places, but NEFFA is quite crowded, a lot of people don't like to go there because it is so crowded. With less dancers it would take everyone going there to make it crowded. With more dancers just a few going makes it crowded. There are also dances all across the country, and while there are people who notably come every year from far away, for the vast majority of dancers, traveling that far doesn't even come up as an option. And ok, not counting Lisa, and five others I won't mention, the most popular callers never go to NEFFA. Make that six others I won't mention. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The placement of NEFFA and Pinewoods: they are mentioned in reference to contra dance today, not in their historical context. If the history section is fleshed out more, I can see those two moving to an earlier spot (in the future "contra dances become huge events" sub-section). — eitch 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The history section would need subsections if it got any bigger. NEFFA and Pinewoods are not proportionally as important today as they were 50 years ago. For today I would write a sentence that would go something like "Today the Flurry, NEFFA and other special events like the all night Dawn dances and the annual Snowball bring together large groups of dancers." 199.125.109.119 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I was confused by the flow of this section, so I split it where the subject changed to dance camps. Maybe I'm missing the point of these comments, but I removed some recent text from the article that I think blurred the historical context of NEFFA and Pinewoods. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

the path towards completeness: ratings, review… FA?!

Five years ago, Yellowdesk said

"What do people think of obtaining a couple of outside reviews of Contra dance? At Wikipedia:Peer_review. The article is pretty stable, although lacking almost all citation to published works demonstrating that the information is not "original research.'"

Things are well cited now, and controversies have been sorted out or at least worked through. It's been over a year since the last activity on this talk page. It's been a long long time since there were anything but small changes to the article (even though they aren't always marked m).

Looks to me like we should ask for some outside reviews, get quality and importance ratings from the Dance portal (see the box at the top of this page), maybe eventually apply for FA. Also, peer reviews of the "form" and "choreography" articles would be good to, and could be GA. What do you think? — eitch 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Desirable Editorial Improvements
    1) The several articles continue to suffer from having been constructed out of personal or experiential knowlege, with thin sourcing and support from published works. This will be the strongest formal critique that will arrive upon an outside review, and will impede the article's consideration for Featured Article status. Since the critique can be anticipated, there is work that can be done to meet it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria for the standards.
    2) Inline footnote-references should be completed with author, title, date, journal or work (as appropriate), the date last accessed and checked as a live source, and improved in quality by finding better references.
    3) Many particular choreographic and historical assertions are able to be and should be supported by specific references. Much can be found in specific pages from works listed in the "further reading" section, as well as other works not yet mentioned.
    4) A review of edited journals, such as the Country Song and Dance Society's quarterly newsletter, as well as other journals is desirable, as published and edited sources and significant "reliable sources".
    5) The Culture of social dance, and affiliated "conferences", festivals, camps, and the like is perhaps the most difficult to source or ascribe to published sources, but still desirable to accomplish to avoid future editorial conflict. In addition, there are several radical transformations of the social and choreographic traditions and performer production values over the last two centuries that have hardly been described, and probably merit an independent article.
    6) Equally desirable is a continuing meta conversation about the affiliated articles and how well the several articles work together, and continuing assessment by the editors of the articles consequent to documenting the many unsupported assertions made in the article.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The section on gender-free contra dancing seems both unnecessary and politically preachy. If you want a page on the history of gender-free contra dancing, create one, don't clutter the history of contra dancing with irrelevant tangents. This line in particular is OPINION and needs to come out: "Gender-free philosophy can be used almost anywhere conventional traditional dances are currently being held. It is useful for community dances where “keeping on the correct side” is difficult because of a large gender imbalance, for children’s dances and for groups who want to add a little variety and a creative learning experience to their traditional dance venue." But I would delete the whole section as pointless and politically slanted.174.61.80.88 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradance, contradanse, contradanza

This article appears to represent a purely North American perspective on what is actually a common folk dance form in South America, Central America and Europe. Also possibly elsewhere. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Globalization

I see that someone has removed the globalize tag, arguing that this is primarily a North American phenomenon. In fact the European tradition is still strong and there are variants in Central and South Americamerica and the Caribbean, viz. Quadrille chocoana[13] in Colombia, in Italy[14][15], France[16], Cuba - Contradanza or Habanera (music), German Kontretanz[17], just for starters. Hence I think the globalize tag is entirely justified. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to amend the article, including citations indicating a variety of significant activity worldwide, and also indicating how the genres in non-North America locations differ. A mere tag does not improve the article. You can though your efforts.
Yellowdesk (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Many cultures have social dances that are done by groups of couples arranged in some definite shape. The question, for the purposes of this article, is which forms can be said to be separate dances, and which are more-or-less minor variations on one another. It's sort of like deciding, in biology, what is a new species and what is a subspecies.
If any of the non-U.S./Canadian dance forms to which Jezhotwells refers is quite similar in structure to the contra dance described in this article (done by couples progressing through a larger formation, using hand-and-arm figures such as circles, stars and chains with little or no footwork), then it may well deserve a section here. But if only the name is similar, the dance should have its own article. (There are many traditional and semi-traditional dance forms around the world that as yet have no article or only a stub.) I know a lot about Anglo-American group dances, but very little about those of other cultures. Eventually, a consensus will decide which forms belong in a "contra dance" article. Tparkes (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Tone/possible original research

Why is the very first sentence comparing it to square dance? There are so many problems with that. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: I think it depends on the comparison being made, but I agree this is not good for the lead. I'm going to remove that part of the lead statement now. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Guye: Also, can you explain where exactly you noticed weasel words and personal opinions? I'd like to try to help fix them if possible. I, JethroBT drop me a line — Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: One example, to start:
  • "Lightweight skirts are often worn. . .at some dances by men as well as women, as these have a very pretty effect when swinging or twirling."
'Pretty'? WP:NPOV violation.--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Contra dance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)\

I've replaced the two dead links. The Mary Dart ref now points to an ebook at cdss.org. Paulmlieberman (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Contra dance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contra_dance/Archive_2&oldid=1135750576"