Talk:Breakdancing

Creation

The creation of the style of dance was by black african americans. The latinos, and everyone else added to the dance later. The sources used for this wiki sight even confirm this. So why is this wiki trying to be misleading, and putting latinos as a creator of the dance style?

With this logic, I can say African American invented the computer, because they were there, and added to it later.

Fix this article please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not saying Latinos solely created the dance. Puerto Ricans and African Americans are credited with creating the dance. Haven't you read Foundation? Also, please try to use correct grammar. Myominane (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They shouldn't be listed under creating anything under hip hop culture at all. The first people to break , uprock, b boy were black people. The first Latin B Boy group even stated this. And if thats not a valid source, then the obvious re writing of black history is present under the construction of this wiki by none black people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.82.56 (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article title

The full discussion about Breakdance and B-boy being merged into a new article titled B-boying is archived here. As you can tell, the result of the discussion was merge. There's also related discussions here and here; same consensus. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why this article states "more commonly known as breakdancing", but is called b-boying. Wikipedia tends to encourage use of the most common name does it not?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the "Terminology" section of the article, and also the discussion about Breakdance and B-boy being merged into a new article titled B-boying here. Crateescape101 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Four elements

The article defines the four basic elements of breaking as toprock, downrock, power moves, and freezes but then says suicides are optional too. I've heard people group both together as finishing moves. So I changed the fourth element to finishing moves and gave freeze and suicide equal weight in the subsequent paragraph. This might be controversial, but I thought it was clearer and currently we don't have a citation for this anyway - Draeco (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote large sections of the dance elements section to more accurately reflect on the dance as it really is. I hope it provides a more accurate depiction of what bboying is. I also undid Draeco's merger because though freezes and suicides are used to emphasize beats, they are fundamentally different aspects of the dance. - Some guy, you have my IP, 5:01, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.82.143 (talk)

move to Breakdance

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Ucucha 14:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

---

B-boying → Breakdance — Breakdance is much more common name, google hists 5.5m Vs 230k. Also we have separate article B-boy. Onlyt tooth (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your last point. B-boy is about the dancer, whereas B-boying is about the dance itself. This is why, although both are related, there are two separate articles. // Gbern3 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Breakdance, breakdancing or just breaking are the common names for this. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The most common term in the reliable sources on the subject is "b-boying". The two most prominent pieces of media on the subject (as far as I'm aware), are the book Foundation: B-boys, B-girls and Hip-Hop Culture in New York, described by Boston Globe as "the best work ever produced on b-boying", and the documentary The Freshest Kids: A History of the B-Boy featuring most of the notable figures. Both use "b-boying", and say that "breakdancing" is an incorrect term that was popular in the '80s when it was considered a fad, but is not used extensively now, having been replaced with the term "b-boying" which is the common term used today, as discussed extensively in the book Foundation over pages 58-67. So per WP:NC - "Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources", "b-boying" is the term that satisfies the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crateescape101 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support IMO breakdancing is the most WP:COMMONNAME. The traffic for B-boying is almost entirely for break dancing redirects, or alternative spelling of the term. In december b-boying had a total traffic level of 18,200. This includes the redirected traffic of breakdance (5400 hits[1]), Break dancing (1300 hits[2]), Break dance (almost 1000 hits[3]), Break Dancing (1300 hits[4]), Breakdancing (2500 hits[5]), Breaking (dancing) (1072 hits[6]).

• Support though I'm torn. The rub is that those "immersed in the culture" (as the article says), use breaking and b-boying. This includes the major media sources, because they're written by immersed people. But clearly I think breakdancing is the most widely recognized term. Sadly in this case, WP:NC sides with the latter. - Draeco (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose per Crateescape101's analysis of WP:NC on terms which are inaccurate despite being wide-spread. - Draeco (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a discussion here about this article being moved from breakdancing to b-boying that took place for over a year (April 08 - July 09) and the concensus in the end was to move. Related discussions here and here; same consensus. Also, all the sources given state that the accurate and correct term for the dance is b-boying (or breaking). For these reasons I oppose. // Gbern3 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support WP:JARGON and WP:COMMONNAME 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, for Crateescape101's reasoning is sound. --Amizzoni (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, Crateescape101's reasoning is just plain opinion supplemented with citations of various publications. It's still an opinion that the article should be renamed. Nowhere was it supported that "B-boying" is common usage. The anonymous poster in the following statement presents the solid numbers that make much more sense. "Breakdancing" is what someone looking up information on the subject would be looking for; "B-boying" may (and just MAY) be what someone who KNOWS about the subject would be looking for. Common usage of "Breakdancing" wins. Heck, "B-boying" is improper English to begin with - it's about as proper as calling the act of operating a vehicle "Drivering". I'd like to think I'm a good statistic as well - I was looking up "breakdancing" (by a link in another article), and I got an article titled "B-boying". This is broken, guys... stop bickering about it with broken logic, and fix the darn page title already. 68.126.159.108 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the point from the below discussion, where WP:NC says "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be the most common name." You can argue "breakdancing" is more common, but according to WP:NC commonness doesn't even matter if the term is inaccurate. And "breakdancing" is specifically said to be inaccurate in numerous sources. As explained below, it doesn't refer to the type of dance being described in the article. Crateescape101 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, it appears you have only made one contribution to wikipedia so far, your above comment... and there are 2 other anonymous comments in favor of support... sock puppetry? Crateescape101 (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It is clear that the proposed name is the common name for this. I'll note that just about all of the related articles and categories use breakdance. So this is really the odd one. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NC says that it doesn't matter if it's the most common name if it is an inaccurate name - "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common."

Not to keep going on about this, but this point seems to be overlooked by each new supporter and hasn't been countered so far, and I don't want this point ignored by whoever has the final decision on this, because it is an important point. Crateescape101 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Right and wrong is not determined by frequency of usage. B-Boying is the historically correct term. --128.176.188.100 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

-- History ----- Someone needs to fix the history of how the dance style was formed. There are clear examples of black people dancing , and doing all the moves that evolved to the point it had reached in the 1980s. People were doing these dances back in the 40s in the African American Community. And there were not other countries, or outside influences at that time.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VbPd2iu4bg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Breakdance#Merging with "Bboy" and Talk:Breakdance#Merge proposal for some background. This move proposal would overturn one of the decisions made there, but consensus can change.

The arguments advanced there for B-boying as the article name seem to be based on the mistaken notion that Wikipedia should act for change in correcting an established common name, when in fact this sort of promotion is forbidden under current policy.

Reading the previous discussion, it seems to me that breaking might be a possible alternative name. It or breakdancing or breakdance would satisfy WP:NC in my opinion; B-boying does not. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The name was changed not because of the "mistaken notion that Wikipedia should act for change in correcting an established common name," but because the established common name in reliable sources is "b-boying", and it is also the name that the sources suggest is now the most common outside of themselves as well. Crateescape101 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first of those two arguments was the one that dominated previous discussions, and is contrary to policy. But the second is interesting. Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Foundation, pages 58-67 talks at length about how at first, "when the dance became a fad in the '80s it was assigned the term breakdancing," but then it discusses the more recent "popularity of the term b-boying" and how the "dance took on the name b-boying". And see my "oppose" post further above for the evidence of b-boying being popular in the reliable sources, per WP:NC. Crateescape101 (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think there is a problem with accuracy of the term breakdancing, in WP:NC it says -

"Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be the most common name. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the less accurate Tidal wave."

This is mentioned in Foundation - "the term breakdancing is problematic on a practical level... b-boying refers to a specific dance form that developed in New York City '70s, while breakdancing is often used as an umbrella term that also includes popping, locking, boogalooing, and other so called funk-style dances that originated in California" (Foundation, pg. 60).

"B-boying" refers to the specific type of dance referred to in this article, which is not accurately described by the term "breakdancing" per reliable sources. Crateescape101 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I'm changing to oppose. - Draeco (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This argument seems to collocate two different Wikipedia concepts, reliable sources and common names, which don't normally or logically go together. There is no mention in WP:NC of reliable sources; What we're interested in is common use, which often differs from local or scholarly use, as seems to be the case here. Andrewa (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Following the link WP:NC which you just posted, it says, and I quote - "Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article." Maybe there is something I'm missing, but to me that clearly states that it goes off reliable sources, as it uses those exact words right there in WP:NC, so I find your assertion that there is "no mention" of it, in a link you just posted, as odd.

It also says, quoting again from that link - "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be the most common name." And in the case of this article, "Breakdancing" is stated in the sources to be an incorrect definition by the book Foundation, the documentary The Freshest Kids, and by the Boston Globe also.

Unless I'm missing something with this as well, that quite clearly states that it doesn't matter how common a term is if it is inaccurate per reliable sources. And "breakdancing" is inaccurate per reliable sources. Crateescape101 (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The fallacy in this argument is that WP:NC considers all English speakers, not just those that write reliable sources. Maybe the standard should be to consider only reliable sources in this, as we do in the case of article content, but it's not; The current standard is to consider all speakers. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at there, but it definitely doesn't address the fact that WP:NC clearly states that if a term has been said to be inaccurate by reliable sources (as breakdancing has been), then it doesn't matter if it is the most common name. Crateescape101 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gender inequality

No mention of the inherent superiority in physical power of males (in general of course, so stop)? Seems important.--213.167.97.194 (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. There's no point in stating something as obvious as that. Myominane (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a point. It's not obvious that some moves will be unachievable to most of the females.--213.167.97.194 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd say it's pretty obvious that since women are born with less muscle than men, it would pretty much just take common sense to see that it's vastly harder for them to be on the same level as men. No sexism intended. Myominane (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That said, there are a few b-girls who are capable of doing many of the moves b-boys can, so moves such as air-flares are not beyond their reach entirely. However, keep in mind that breaking is first and foremost a dance, and it does not take flashy moves to be a good dancer. Whanhee 07:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian Influence?

Some breakdancing moves can be seen in Ukrainian dancing as far back as the 1930s and earlier. Not sure what the names of the steps are 'though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.97.181 (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It could just be a coincidence. B-boying was created in the early 70s by Puerto Ricans and African Americans. Myominane (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Table of Contents

I'm not a wiki fanatic, so I don't know how pages are correctly supposed to be outlined, but shouldn't History go right after Terminology, instead of Dance Techniques? Myominane (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would make more sense that way. Also, changing it would support WP:BOLD policy. Done. //Gbern3 (talk)

Dissapointing Overview

I used to break for over 8 years back in the later 90s. Purely out of curiousity I checked the wiki page, but I have to say the amount of information here is a little dissapointing. I am sure I am not the only one thinking that this article is a little shallow! The history section, certainly deserves to be improved! What about a list of crews, and an overview of the scene and influential bboys & bgirls.

Also Article is highly biased towards US, Europe deserves more attention. Also a better explanation of the different sub-styles within breaking would be nice.

I might help out with this at some point, but I hope some of these issues will be addressed by the wider wiki community here. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.9 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to sound like an asshole, but do it yourself if you're so inclined.

Of course the article is biased toward the US as that's where it started. You are also biased stating that Europe deserves more attention. Personally, I think there should be more attention toward Asia, specifically Korea, but I'm not complaining about it.

Now regarding everything else you suggested. You do realize that bboying is not a well-documented subject, right? We don't even have exact knowledge of how it began. A list of crews, professional or not, would be too unstable. That would probably merit an article of its own. B-boying is also viewed from different perspectives. One's definition of influential is too opinion-based. An overview of the scene is also difficult, as rarely does someone travel frequently around the world to learn each region's bboy scene. I'll use myself as an example. I am an Asian-American b-boy from Louisiana. I have no idea what the scene is like around the rest of the globe and I only have knowledge of the Southern US bboy scene. Don't you also think it would be extremely difficult to find someone immersed in each region's scene to describe it, then put it on Wikipedia?

Myominane (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To expand on what Myominane said, it's hard to update this page in particular because Wikipdia has core policies of neutrality and verifiability: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors....All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research." This basically means that if you can not prove the validity of information (such as who the most influential breakers are) with a reliable third party source such as a magazine or book then that makes it an opinion. If it's an opinion then it's biased and if it's biased, it'll probably end up being deleted because it goes against the above mentioned core policies. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop visiting every article you're interested in and complaining on the talk page about what you don't like as demonstrated by your edits. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the way Wikipedia works but since you don't have that many edits attributed to your IP, I will assume WP:GOODFAITH. All of the articles here are created and edited by the general public who, at one point or another, felt compelled to volunteer their time to developing these article into what they are today. The page on Wikipedia's edit policy states it in this way: "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." If there's something you see lacking in an article that bothers you enough to put exclamation points after your complaints, please WP:BEBOLD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of taking a passive approach and expecting another editor to do it just because you left a comment on the talk page. For your reference, here is a quote from the bold policy that empowers you to edit these pages yourself:

WP:BEBOLD policy: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it." // Gbern3 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Gbern 3, thanks for the suggestions, and all the comments my initial comment has created. It would seem I did take the wrong approach by being passive and as you suggested the WP:BEBOLD policy is something I should follow up. I shall look to take a little time out and write some improvements. Thanks.