Talk:Electric Slide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update on lawsuit[edit]

I have posted a pretty short update on the lawsuit as EFF and R. Sliver have settled the lawsuit. Terms of the settlement are that the "Dance" license shall be now CC. Its final weeks for me, so i just made a quick edit about the lawsuit. Someone please go thru the article and update the whole thing (or i will when i have time). Zsiddique 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some initial tidying-up. `'mikka 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]



i love wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.123.42 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Copyright was submitted? What does that mean? 69.253.222.184 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Submitted means that Mr. Silver paid his $30.00 and filed a copyright registration form with the Library of Congress - which was originally rejected with the statement that in 1976, the laws governing registration of a dance only included ballet that told a story. A new law was enacted that year which did not take effect until 1978, but because Mr. Silver gave out a limited number of printed copies, an appeal was filed, at a cost of $250.00 to grant Mr. Silver his registration due to the fact that a Limited publication was covered seeing he didn't actually publish the dance until it was posted online in 1996. He was again rejected because the dance was now considered a "Social Dance". A 3rd and FINAL appeal was submitted in March of 2006 at a cost of $500.00 which an answer was received in March of 2010 stating that at that time the Library of Congress is reluctant to register the piece as a Choreographic Work but will register it as "Text of a Line Dance". I hope this answers your question(Ric Silver) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCsDancer (talk • contribs) 07:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]



IN Feb. 2006, Mr. Silver submitted his copyright to the Library of Congress for Registration. It was originally rejected as being a "Social Dance" which under the rules of registration are not eligible but after consideration was found to be acceptable due to the fact that the current dance being done socially is actually a variation of Mr. Silver's original choreography. A second appeal was filed in March 2007 which is still under review and should be resolved by the Fall of 2009.


So...he sues people that don't do the dance "correctly?" "The removal appears to be part of a broad campaign by Silver to misuse copyright allegations to prevent dancers from performing the dance "incorrectly." http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/03/01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondesareeasy (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No - I don't sue people who do the dance incorrectly - my lawyers are going after people who have textually misrepresented my choreography and not given credit where it is due. The EFF ruling states anyone posting video of The Electric Slide, even the 18 step variation, must show Ric Silver as the choreographer. (Ric Silver)

Over detailed?[edit]

Does anyone want to justify why this article is tagged as over-detailed, or can we just take that down. 'Cause honestly, while the article might need some cleaning up, over-detailed it ain't. I'd love to see, for example, a reference to its popularity in the 50s and a bit of rewording in the section about the litigations; but there isn't a single section here that is unnecessary or of interest to a minority. Lostdrewid (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The was NEVER done in the 50s - It wasn't created until 1976. the record wasn't even released until 1982 to the general public. I have just received my registration paperwork from the Library of Congress who took 6 years to study this claim. TX7-322-278 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCsDancer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Lawsuit Error[edit]

The article states that "As early as 2004, Silver had started filling DMCA-based takedown notices to YouTube users who were posting videos of people performing the 18 step dance variation." This however is impossible due to the fact that YouTube was no created until 2005. Wikipedialuva 18:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date now says 2002 -- which is even more impossible. What's the right way to correct this? Ccheever (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lindy hop which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lindy Hop which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electric Slide. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Issues with Article[edit]

Rather than a drive-by tagging, I wanted to outline the concerns I hold with the article as it currently stands.
In my view, this article fails to meet the notability criteria.

If anyone wishes to comment, or provide additional references, please feel free! However I am tempted to submit it to AfD as I do not believe the subject has achieved (or is likely to achieve) notability.

Notability

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
— WP:GNG
  • ...significant coverage...
  • I do not believe there is significant coverage of the topic.
A general Google web search using various combinations of the terms ("Electric Slide" and "Dance" "Choreography" "Line Dance" "Boogie" "Electric Boogie" "Marcia Griffiths" "Bunny Wailer" "Richard L Silver" "Ric Silver" "Richard Silver" or "Silver") found, at most, 340,000 results. A Google news search using the same terms found 2,140 results. A Google news archive search found 3 results. A Google books search found 4,370 results.
  • A review of these results found that none of these sources featured the Electric Slide as the direct, detailed focus. They were vastly 'Human Interest' stories which just so happened to include the Electric Slide; which was, by no means, the focus of the article. It was essentially irrelevant to these sources whether the Electric Slide, the chicken dance, or any other dance was mentioned. Essentially, they were trivial mentions.
  • ...reliable sources that are independent of the subject...
  • i.e. secondary sources
The first reference in the article is a first party source, providing the copyright documentation confirming that a copyright is held over the Electric Slide.
The other two sources are links to Electronic Frontier Foundation press releases regarding a legal case surrounding the Copyright held by the choreographer. I do not believe these may be considered persuasive sources as to the notability of the Electric Slide
There were no additional secondary sources available on my search which provided significant coverage.

Essentially, as it stands this subject does not appear to be notable. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is a line dance taught in ballroom schools all over the united states. its steps described in numerous places. there is nothing much to talk about it. coverage is sufficient. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
coi tag is redundant: no abuse, article has been edited and watched by many. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electric_Slide&oldid=1196687586"