User:Eitch/Sandbox

This is an

archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page You may also want to read the archive of the page-move discussion

.

Improvements Needed

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

The article is long enough to deserve section headers (added)
The dance figures need to be explained - I'm working on that.
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.
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.
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.
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)

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)

General

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."

the "overview" essay debate

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)

There's also been some discussion back and forth on talk pages, see User_talk:Improv#Contra_Dance and User_talk:Mattimero

miscategorizations?

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)