Talk:Belly dance

External links

This article is extremely heavy with external references placed within the text. This is against wikipedia guielines.

Those who are fans of this artcle, please rearrange it in such a way that al external links are placed where they are belong, namely, at the "external links" section. If a external link points to a notable person or event, please consider writing a wikipedia article (at least a stub) and link to it, rather than to the outrer world. mikka (t) 21:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai, it took me a while to understand your posting, it is a little bit confusing. For my understanding, "external links" is a section with links to webistes out (external!) of the wikipedia website, not a link to another article inside wikipedia. If you don't think that external links should be placed here, then maybe we should consider changing the title "external links" to "other links inside wikipedia". There are several great external links that you keep deleting, and I can't understand why do you do that. People who have interest for Belly Dance is also interested on everything that is happening now in that area. Unless the external link goes to a website that doesn't have anything to do with Belly Dance, then it is understandable that the link is removed, but otherwise, it sounds more like a blockage to the freedom of contribuiting to Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonisha (talk • contribs) .

Mikkalai, I just noticed that the link to Bellydancenet is a dead link... is that the idea of a good external link? I think there are lots of contradictions when different people are allowed to free edit, and there will always be different opinions, and people will always be "adding" & "editing" endless things. Concerning the external links for Belly Dance, I think the links to pages where you can visit what other dancers are doing should be included as external links. Maybe we should create different categories of external links there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonisha (talk • contribs) .

Further, Mikkalai has been removing links to sites with accurate and researched information about belly dance and overall doing some really odd things which suggests little understanding of the topic. Following what has been happening here for the last few months, on a topic I am very educated in, makes me realize the total uselessness of Wikipedia. If people can put rubbish in and remove factual information - or links to factual information - or twist the wording (yes, Morocco is a dancer - but in the context she was mentioned her credentials in field research and history were far more relevant) then I can trust NOTHING I read in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.167.249.253 (talk • contribs) .

My link to my site keeps getting deleted bellydancevideos.blogspot.com. I'm not sure how to go about finding out who is deleting it and why? please explain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.61.232 (talk • contribs) 86.29.61.232|86.29.61.232.

You can check out the lastest edits by going to the main article, then clicking the "history" tab. My guess is that your link is being deleted because it is a link to your site; that's generally not encouraged on Wikipedia. It might be helpful to review Wikipedia's Spam policy and the article about what Wikipedia is not. In addition, please remember to sign your name at the end of any comments you post on this site. It's easy, just use four ~'s in a row, or click the button that says "sign your name" below the edit box. --Zagsa 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your reply, but I still fail to understand why my link keeps getting deleted. I would understand if it was a link to a site that was irrelevant & profit making, however it is a site of bellydance videos which I feel is completely relevant! Other wikipedia articles contain external links to video sites, so I don't see why mine keeps getting removed. I clicked on history, and as I am not very computer literate I can't tell who is deleting my link or how to contact them about this matter. Can anybody advise me further?86.29.61.232 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one else replies, try posting a message on Pschemp's talk page. She appears to be the one who edited it out and can perhaps explain her reasoning better. --Zagsa 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info zagsa86.29.61.232 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi...Michelle? I'm Woodrow -- asim on here and in the dance world -- and I'm one of the people who's taken out the link to your weblog. I'm going to briefly discuss what's up, from my perspective, and hopefully give an understanding as to why I've been removing it. If you need more detail, feel free to respond.

First, let me apologize if I offended. Since you posted the link anonymously, I had no way to know if you were the contact for the action(s) in question, and I'm glad you took the time to come ask. One concern was that you appear to link primarily to YouTube clips from DVDs, mostly of Belly Dance SuperStar material. I know there have been copyright concerns regarding the BDSS material on YouTube brought to Miles' attention, and as Wikipedia is strongly concerned with avoiding even the hint of copyright infringement (as you reply, look down at the "Do not violate any copyright!" note), that came to be one concern.

In addition, BDSS -- and I have two acquaintances who've been Desert Roses, so this is not a dig at all! -- is but one piece of the dance world this article attempts to cover. If they decide to ask YouTube to remove the clips, your site will be lacking in content. With more, and move varied, content, I think it might be a great link...with the next bit as a caveat!

Wikipedia is not a set of links, but an series of articles; excessive linking is, as Zagsa noted, ga concern of Wikipedia overall. As you've no doubt noted, this article is under copy revision. We're trying to actually slim it up, tone it down, and make it a very focused & strong resource. I'd actually prefer fewer links than we have now, and links to sites with dance videos are, as you yourself noted, something we already have in the article. And I say this as someone with a now-dormant dance linksite myself; I'm all-too-aware of the challenges of putting together information for other webfolks, and I personally thank you for the service.

Does that make more sense, overall? -- Woodrow, known to some as Asim 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

thankyou woodrow for explaining this to me..it makes perfect sense;) much appreciated. Michelle86.29.58.226 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Robsk, I'm personally grateful that you have an interest in promoting solid information on the dance. At the same time, as you can see from reading this Talk page, we're working hard to keep the number of extraneous links down. Would you consider adding information to the article itself, rather than a link to your site? Woodrow, known to some as Asim 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

AtholM is repeatedly deleting external link to rare videos...hidden agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.158.69 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No hidden agenda. I believe that the busker central web site does not provide any useful reference to this article. This article is repeatedly abused by people trying to promote useless and/or irrelevant web sites. I'd suggest that you discuss the relevance of the site on this talk page before putting it in the article. If you can explain how it provides relevant reference material to this article and get a consensus on adding it, it'll stay when added. If you are directly associated with the site or its content, you will need to convince someone else to add it to avoid a conflict of interest. --Athol Mullen 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And that is seconded by myself. We are not a list of links to dance stuff on the web, rare or not. There are many sites, such as Shira's, that do provide such links -- and I should know, as I used to run a belly-dance link site! If you read through the commentary on this page, you will see that said link is far from the only one to have been removed, and will also gain an understanding as to why we're trying to focus additions on the text, not simply add links. Does that make sense? -- Woodrow, known to some as Asim 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should there be 2 Links to shira.net Please delete one of these external links!!! User Eaglesk

Corrections/Additions

Overall, I found this this to be a well-researched, informative article on bellydance. However, I did notice some spelling, grammatical, and syntactic errors in the text. It seemed a shame to me that an otherwise well-written article should suffer from these errors, so I took the liberty to correct them. I also made some other minor changes that I thought might help clarify things for an uninformed reader, such as spelling out American Tribal Style, where it had originally only been abbreviated. I attempted to leave the basic content of the text alone as much as possible, as I had no complaint with it overall, and I did not wish to subvert the author's original intent. I did had some additional thoughts about the health benefits of bellydance, which I took the liberty of adding to that section, although I did not delete any of the original content. I felt the additional information might be helpful to those interested in learning about bellydance. I hope I did not offend anyone by making these changes; my only interest was to put forth before the public the best face possible for bellydance, as I'm sure would be in keeping with the author's original intent, as well as the desire of all of us that are bellydancers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.1.44.191 (talk • contribs) .

This page has links to some articles on belly dancing in the middle east (eg bans being placed or lifted). Andjam 12:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Some items I'd like to work on -- comments, anyone?

• "Belly dance has been known in Egypt since the pre-Islamic era, based on oral tradition." & "It has a long history of depictions in Persian miniature paintings from the 12th and 13th centuries" -- This is, to the best of my knowledge, in some dispute. This has been pervasive in the dance community since at least Jamila Salimpour's book in the early 70s (but likely earlier than that). I *do* have a academic reference to pre-Islamic dance from MUSIC IN THE WORLD OF ISLAM, and of course there's the oft-cited reference to "quivering thighs" from a dancer in Roman times. However, it's questionable if either of these, or the Ethopian male dancer related in a haidth, are actually extant forms of raqs. I believe we should include some of this, but inform the reader of the open-ended nature of the "is it raqs/history of raqs" question.

I've been cosidering changing that as well. Since it is a very disputed issue. It's pure speculation that bellydance has been around since the time of ancient egypt. In fact a very good book that's been well researched called Ancient Egyptian Dances by Irena Lexova (sp? sorry don't have the book with me right now) Talks about what is known of ancient egyptian dances and for the most part what is known is quite different from the current dance know commonly as bellydance. If you think you can fix it up and make it a little more accurate or at least note that it's only one of many theories than I fully support you. Cassandra581 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I can fix it -- my current plan is to give a couple of sentences to each "major" theory -- the Egyptian, Goddess/Matrifocal, and Morocco's Childbirth ones. I'll cite the more-or-less definitive article or book on each, and hopefully that'll encourage anyone who comes after to cite similarly. I'm hoping to encourage contributors to CITE CITE CITE work, so we can avoid the "I heard from my teacher who heard from her teacher's best friend that bellydance come from X" bit. I'll also touch on the Rom contributions, but those aren't usually seen in the dance community as origins, per se. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think of all of those as part of the same theory. Could you possibly elaborate a little on what's different about them to you? Not that they couldn't be seperate as well but it seems as though those three are usually inter-related by most dance historians. I'd also be likely to agree with them that if it were done by ancient Egyptians it's likely already in worship of the Goddess and most likely would have something to do with childbirth in relation to that. But that also wouldn't neccessarily cover the theories that suggest the dance was spread by Gypsy migrations from India and it also wouldn't cover those theories which suggest it developed naturally in regions by way of trade and border expansions. Were you planning to mention those as well? If this is getting too long for the talk page your welcome to e-mail me or to post on my user talk page. Cassandra581 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can drop a link to the draft re-write, so you (or anyone!) can take a look-see... Sorry for the 2 weeks "off" -- it's been crazy 'round here. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Egyptian tomb paintings dating from as far back as the fourteenth century BC depict partially-clad dancers whose callisthenic positions mirror those used in belly dancing." -- Is raqs even callisthenic? I'm not sure there's a viable link here at all; this one I'd like to either find a solid citation for, or recommend removal of.

Perhaps re-rwiting it to say something that some positions are similar and look for pictures of egyptian tomb paintings that may resemble belly dance Cassandra581 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that rubs up against the "no original research" guideline in Wikipedia. I'd rather simply mention it, and let someone who's deep into that research come on and give some citations. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on how you go about it. I've seen egyptian pictures with dancers that look exactly like they are doing khaleeji and I've seen ones that look like common folk steps used today as well. I don't know if there is anything that could really be considered original research by saying this picture looks similar to this move/step/dance done today. Especially since it's not exactly original research if the same kinds of comments have allready been printed in countless bellydance books... which it definately has. I guess that I myself would prefer it be re-written as opposed to just completely removed but if it can't be re-written better I just as soon remove it as well. Perhaps the article here would also be of help in re-writing this section and possibly other sections as well http://www.bdancer.com/history/ it seems pretty well researched. I asked her for a list of her sources before but she did not have a comlete list. Cassandra581 06:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well...here's the thing. Have you read Dr. Shay's work COREOPHOBIA, where he talks at some length about the issues in interpreting images as items for dance? For an overview, which this article is, I'd rather mention it, and get someone else with some expertise to fill in that blank, than for one of us to stick out neck out with "it could be..." statements that could get shot down. I don't see this article, or us as writers, as providers of support for the theory itself; I'm OK (as my first bit will show) with defining the apparent support level within the dance, native and/or scholarly communities, however. As far as Mei'ra work, I know it well -- we're both in the [|SCA], and indeed, her work was key to stimulating my interest in raqs historical research. At the same time, I have...a number of issues with her work; she tends to conflate timeframes and not "connect the dots" on regional variations, for a couple of issues. I was hoping to use some of her data (she quotes The Dancer of Shamahka, for one), but perhaps take another approach to laying out the theories of origin for raqs shaquri. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Some Western women began to learn from and imitate the dances of the Middle East [...] Mata Hari is the most famous example" -- I've been told by a number of people that we should point out that MH was NOT a dancer. I do believe, however, that she used Orentalist motifs, so this is another point I'd love to see citied and clarified.

I agree! Although Mata Hari is partially responsible for the interest in bellydance at the time she was not actually a bellydancer in fact she was possibly performing some sort of asian temple dance(I can't remember what exactly but I'd highly reccomend watching the A&E biography on her as it mentions it there. If I get a chance to watch it again I will post what they believe she was really dancing). Besides that Mata Hari is not much more than a Glorified Stripper which isn't really the message most of us want to go for... right? Cassandra581 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Watched the biography last night and she billed herself as a "hindu" dancer and may have learned some dancing in Java from the people and at the temples there. 66.41.7.124 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, so that's me looking for a citation, and editing that as well. Thanks for the check! Woodrow, known to some as Asim 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out the article about her here on wikipedia to see if there are any good sources there. They also have the same information on their article about her being an Indian/Hindu dancer. Cassandra581 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll link back to her, and edit that as a clarification. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Accents using "pop and lock" [...] dancing with chiffon or silk veils." -- I'd like to either clarify that many of these are Western-only concepts wrt raqs, or pair it down to the basics that all raqs dancers appear to share (and find a good citation for same). Otherwise, we run the risk of comparing McIntosh and Golden Delicious Apples.  :)
• "Egyptian-style belly dance is based on the work of belly dance legends Samia Gamal, Tahiya Karioka, Naima Akef, and other dancers who rose to fame during the golden years of the Egyptian film industry." -- As important as those ladies were to the development and popularization of raqs shaquri, I firmly believe that we cannot write any decent history of this form without citing the ground-breaking work of Badi‘a Masabni and her Casino Opera, esp. as she's referenced in the Tahiya Karioka article.

I agree that Badi'a Masabni is very important to bellydance history (which is why I mentioned her in the Tahiya Karioka article) but She herself is not much of an influence on most dancers of that style simple because her style is not well known. When you hear people talking about who's dancing what style I've never heard someone saying "that's Badi'a Masabni style" but, I have heard quite frequently that's Samia, Tahiya, Naima, Nagwa, Fifi, Dina, Lucy, etc... style. Perhaps some mention that all of them were taught by Badi'a Masabni and given a position in her troup at Casino Opera (although that was rather short lived for Naima Akef) might be more apropriate or that she was a large influence on early egyptian styles (aka Samia, Tahiya, and Naima). Cassandra581 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya! By "ground-breaking work" I refer to the core place she had in helping to develop and "sell" raqs shaquri; although some of the style did come from her dancing, it's more about her promotion and support of the dancers. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think adding a small part about that would be good for the article as long as it's kept pretty short. I would reccomend creating a new article specifically about her for a more in-depth understanding of her influence and contributions since the feel of the article is more of a what is this style today kind of thing. Cassandra581 06:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all for now. I do have more I'd like to work on, but there's only so much trouble-makin' and citing a man can do in a day! Thanks for reading and commenting! Woodrow, known to some as Asim 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see the article re-organized and re-structured to have a better history section which can talk about different theories of origin and then it could ease into more specific styles after that. Only egyptian, american, and turkish are listed now but lebanese is also highly influental as well as well as other styles. I'm not an expert on that style so I haven't expanded the article to include it. Perhaps have two major headings Middle Eastern Styles and Western/American Styles. I'd like to see the whole "general" section re-done and possibly split into a "what is bellydance?"(extremely generic description) and a "History" section. Cassandra581 06:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Pschemp for catching my horrible mistake! Mea culpla++. For everyone else, I've added the Origin stuff I mentioned above. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

From Alexandra Ahnide: I'd love to see a new section on competitive belly dancing, there are between 10-20 competitions in the US and others in Iceland, Australia, Egypt, & Lebanon. These competitions are uplifting the standards of this artform. I also edited bellydance to belly dance except in the case of proper nouns: Bellydance Superstars, FatChanceBellyDance, and Bellydance-a-thon. Be11yDancer 01:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My edit

I removed the 'fortunately for us' bit but I made a slight mistake in my edit summary. It should have read "Whether or not what the dance creating a craze was fortunate is an irrelevant POV that shouldn't be discussed. Also, 'us' assumes reader cares about what happens in the west". I am not disputing inclusion of the discussion of a craze. I am disputing discussion of whether something was fortunate or not. I have also since re-read the original text and realised, it's not so much an issue of the west. My main point still remains though. Us assumes the reader shares the same view with what is written and should NEVER be included (except in quotes and stuff like that). Words like fortunately should not be included either because they express a POV that something is fortunate. While you may feel it is fortunate and indeed many people may feel so, POVs should only be expressed in appropriate contexts. Nil Einne 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

More About External Links

Mel Etitis has been removing links which I think are helpful to the bellydance article. He thinks links should be limited to 5. I think the links should be allowed to be more provided they are all highly realavent to the content of the article and fall within wikipedia's guidelines for external links. One that he has removed which I think is very beneficial and should be permanent is Middle Eastern Dance are there any other dancer out there who don't think this resource should be include in the external links section? Or would you also like to see it included? I think it should be included since it offers hundreds of useful articles and how-to's on bellydance and bellydance related things which would be a great asset to the article. Anyone else have an opinion about the links? Cassandra581 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the plural, as though you're pointing out some general behaviour of which your example is just one example, the issue concerns only the link that you're determined to add. I now see that the site is yours; please read Wikipedia's strictures against adding sites that you own or maintain. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The site is not mine although I do find it to be an extremely helful site. The plural still stands since you have removed not only that site but several others which are beneficial to the article and those who wish to learn about bellydance. I figured it's hard enough to get you to add one site why try to get you to add more. I picked the one I thought was most useful. Cassandra581 19:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cassandra581, just out of curiosity, what exactly is your relationship to middleeasterndance.net? SteveHopson 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a user who happens to think it's one of the better sites out there involving belly dance. I have visited it many times since I dicovered it and I encourage other people to visit it as well because I feel the content is of a good quality and tries to represent all points of veiw equally and fairly. It's free, there's no marketing, and it provides a lot of good information for all levels of bellydancers. I frequently refer back to it and have used the contract templates from it as well. I would not make such a big deal out of it but we are supposed to be free to add content and links that are beneficial to the article and some administrators won't allow us to add sites even if they are really good. I have tried adding it several times and I also noticed it was added by people other than myself earlier but continues to be removed. It falls within the guidlines of what links we can add and is far too massive, just as Shira's site is too massive, to be integrated into the article itself. Mel Etitis probably thinks because both myself and the creator share the same first name that we are one and the same however I would like to point out that my Name is Cassandra Mohamed and the sites creator and owner is Cassandra Strand. 2 different people! Cassandra581 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you and Cassandra Strand are "2 different people," will you explain the similarities between you, Cassandra581 (Cassandra Mohamed) and Casandra Strand, the owner of the site in question, middleeasterndance.net? For example, Cassandra Strand has registered a Yahoo! profile under your user name, Cassandra581 [[1]]. And, Yahoo!'s Cassandra581 clearly shows a homepage of middleeasterndance.net. An updated version of Yahoo!'s registration for Cassandra581 [[2]] is registered under your name, Cassandra Mohamed, but shows the same photo as Cassandra Strand. Similarly, Cassandra581 is registered on Tribe.net to Cassandra Strand [[3]]. SteveHopson 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please not that I have put the issue into informal mediation to resolve dispute. You can visit the [case] if you wish but I will also post what the informal mediator has posted. If the matter remains unresolved I will move for further measures in mediation. I also would like to point out that many people who have added "helpful" sites. May also wish to pursue further action if they are continually denied the ability to freely add useful information to the article and it's external links. Here is what the informal mediator has posted:

"Mediator response

Here's what I can see about this case:

• Limits

1. There are no limits written in WP policy about the limit of external links
2. You don't want too many external links because it is better to expand the article instead of just linking
3. The belly dance article is plenty long enough and has more than enough information

Result: You should be able to put (almost) whatever link you want in the external links section and Mel Etitis is incorrect in removing them

• Eastern Dance

1. This link is currently under construction, so it doesn't actually provide any information
2. The URL indicates that it could potentially be a good source

Result: For now, leave the link off, but keep an eye on it and if the site comes back, go ahead and put it on

Make sure to point Mel Etitis towards my response. If you continue to have problems, let me know and we can escalte the problem. Amalas =^_^= 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalas (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry link was not written correctly I forgot to space it properly. should be [Middle Eastern Dance] Cassandra581 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)"

I have no idea who "Amalas" is (aside from apparently not knowing enough to sign his/her comments), but his/her comment is not only obscure (though it suggests a peculiar lack of logic) — it ignores the plain fact that Cassandra581 has been trying to add a link to her own site (as SteveHopson has pretty conclusively demonstrated), and has been dishonest about that fact. That Amalas threatens to escalate the problem doesn't fill me with confidence either; nor does the fact that he/she seems to have chosen to issue a "verdict" on my action despite having failed to contact me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I do know how to properly sign comments. What is written above was copied from the Mediation Case about this topic. I thought it would be better to maintain the original timestamp rather than adding a new one. Also, I was not the one who copied that message to this page, it was Cassandra.

As to why I am involved in this case, Cassandra requested an informal mediation (link in above paragraph), and I responded to it. It is my first case, so I do apologize for not contacting you directly. I had assumed that Cassandra had done so. In addition, she had posted my comments on this talk page, so I assumed that you would see it.

Regarding escalating the problem, what I meant was that if a simple informal mediation does not resolve the issue, there is a more formal Mediation Committee that can take it from here.

I hope this answers your questions and I would encourage you to stay cool in resolving this issue. Amalas =^_^= 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the links to any of those profiles says it's registered to Cassandra Mohamed they all say they are registered to a Cassandra Strand, the updated yahoo profile simply says cassandra581. MY name happens to be Cassandra and when I registered here as Cassandra the name was already in use I tried several othe number combinations and 581 is the one that was not in use yet. I can't explain the similarity other than the fact that we both have the same first name and apparently have picked the same following 3 digit number to follow our names. I suppose that everyone in every state who has the name Cassandra Mohamed is also me? I searched the name Steve Hopson and guess what there are probably at least 5 different ones that I came upon in my brief search, are they all you? I doubt it. In our ever expanding world we are bound to have overlap of real life and user names. Being as my name is in real life Cassandra, do I not have a ligitimit claim to also use a handle which reflects that? What proof do you have that Cassandra Strand and Cassandra Mohamed ARE the same person? Especially when none of those profiles mention MY name? They mention her name only. And I'm not surprised that as they are all registered to her that her homepage is listed in her profile. Despite that, we're getting away from the real issue which is that wikipedia does not have a specific limit as to how many links are allowed with each article! Also that external links should be allowed as long as they follow the guidelines wikipedia has set forth. Mel Etitis is assuming that he can choose which links and how many should be included on a page that is supposed to be freely edited within reason. If there are 10 relavant links, I think all ten should be listed if there is only 1 than only one should be listed. Especially with a subject which is already so widely varied and complex you should naturally expect to find more links than you would on other topics which may not be as diverse. Since there is no official anything in bellydance you can't just link to one official link to go further into the topic. Cassandra581 05:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating; not only do you share the same (somewhat unusual) name as the site's owner, which is certainly within the bounds of possibility, but you chose exactly the same three-digit number as her, by complete coincidence. Note that the odds regarding this don't only concern choosing the same number out of all the possible three-digit numbers, but choosing a three-digit number in the first place...

I notice that you have no e-mail address set up; would you do that now, so that I can e-mail you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Even more fascinating. You gave your e-mail address at the "mediation cabal" page — and, surprise surprise, it was the address of the owner of the site. Now you've changed it (by one letter). Another mysterious coincidence? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a typo? It's no coincidence it simply that our addresses are off by 1 letter and in my hurry to finish typing I did not catch it. I changed it to my correct e-mail address. I happen to use the number 581 because it's a number that has significance for me. There are 3 number combinations which I use in that way and 581 is one of them. I do not know what, if any significance the number holds for Cassandra Strand. You may email me at all the e-mail adresses which you believe are mine and see if I answer them. The only one I would respond to is the cassandram581@yahoo.com since that's the only one I have. I have also confirmed the e-mail address with wikipedia if you would like to e-mail me. Either way you still are avoiding the point. The point is that no matter what site I want to add or anyone else wants to add you will still remove because you think that you are somhow better than other contributers and continue to follow guidelines set by yourself not by wikipedia. Cassandra581 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cassandra581's answer to my question yesterday is that she is not the owner of the Cassandra581 Yahoo! name, that it belongs to the owner of the contested site, Cassandra Strand, not Wiki's Cassandra581 who she acknowleges to be Cassandra Mohamed. I certainly believe in taking people at their word, but this posting to a Yahoo! bellydance site seems to cast some doubt on the statements by Cassandra Mohamed here by clearly showing her name associated with the other Cassandra's identity: [[4]]. SteveHopson 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what to say about that one other than it wasn't me. I'd suggest asking her why she used that name when it differs from her name listed. I can't answer for her although it was strange to see her use my name as I've never seen her use it anywhere else. As I pointed out in my other statement this is beside the point since the dispute has little to do with the actual site would it make you feel any better if I were asking to add www.zilltech.com? I feel this is another valuable resource which should be added. However, Mel Etitis would still not allow it.Cassandra581 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like for us to stay focused on the issue of allowing people to freely add apropriate links. As of yet you both have been focusing onwho I am and not the matter being disputed. Besides that the wikipedia policy on external links says this "NOTE relating to items #3 and #9: Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included." First of all I'm not the first person to have posted it. If you read theough the history you will also see it has been added by others before my first contirbution even existed. The first [[5]] on November 21, 2005 and the second [[6]] on December 3, 2005. My very first contribution was on December 3, 2005 to another article Samia Gamal. Furthermore, the link remained there from December 3, 2005 until January 20,2006 when it was removed with other sites by an anonymous user. Obviously others already wanted it to be added, so even if I were the owner of the site, I was not the one adding it. However, I'm not the owner of the site and I chose to add something that had already been present for 1 1/2 months with no problem. Either way it's on the talk page now so that people can visit the site to determine if it is a good link to include and both of you are trying to take to dispute in a different direction. Please focus on the actual dispute at hand. Cassandra581 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

{{tl:RFMF}} Cassandra581 07:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

{{content}} in Belly dance#External links

Please leave the {{content}} template in this section until the dispute is resolved. Amalas =^_^= 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no genuine dispute. Cassandra581 has tried repeatedly to link-farm, and the link is to her own site (typically for such cases, she placed it first in the list, with a gushing, PoV description ([7]). Open and shut case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a resource with lot's of how-to articles so how is that "gushing" PoV? Besides which that is not the dispute the dispute is you and your excessive removal of links which according to wikipedia guidelines may be added but according to your guidelines cannot.Cassandra581 03:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There obviously is a dispute because Mel and Cassandra have differing opinions about what links should appear in the article. As such, {{content}} should stay until you can come to a consensus. According to WP:EL:

Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should consist solely of a collection of external links. Wikipedia always prefers internal links over external links. However, adding a certain number of relevant external links is of valuable service to our readers.

The article is long enough to warrant more than a small number of links. There is no arbitrary limit. Regarding the one that is purportedly owned by Cassandra, can you at least agree to leave that one off until its ownership can be verified? Any other links should be allowed to be added. Amalas =^_^= 14:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Male Bellydancers

I am not sure if Tsifteteli counts, but if it does, this guy is an ace! Picture http://www.btinternet.com/~christopher.blackmore/rebetiko/stavros.jpg on my site http://www.btinternet.com/~christopher.blackmore/rebetiko/hydra2004fri.html The Real Walrus 09:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Rather than Mediation, an RfC would seem to be the better initial course. I've placed the article there; would editors leave their comments here please? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a very small point and I recommend the editors collaborate to expand the article to make it a WP:FAC. That would be a good use of time and energy and one to make you proud. I find the debate about identities and ownership to be somewhat excessive. I would suggest putting that to one side and concentrating on the question of whether the disputed link would be an asset in terms of being helpful to readers to gain further information. I don't know much about belly dancing, but I did check out the site and it seemed to me to be something that would be useful to the reader. If this is the case, then it should be linked. Don't fight for points of principle. Be practical. Tyrenius 16:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I whole-heartedly welcome others opinions on the dispute but you have already made it quite obvious that you are not interested in anyone else's opinions or interventions on the matter unless they are in full support of what you say and want. I have tried informal mediation you didn't contribute anything constructive to that. I have listed the site for reccomendation in the talk page here, you didn't even leave a comment on whether the article looks as though it may be benifical to readers. You only want to argue about my supposed identity. I tried to to post the issue on the 3rd opinion page but, it was removed because I had already entered into informal mediation. I decided to try the only thing you have admited that you will listen to which is someone who has authority over you. That is why I have requested formal mediation. You try continuously to throw Wikipedia rules and guidelines in my face but when I give you actual quotes from Wikipedia's rules and guidelines you don't care to even consider them. If you are so certain that you are correct than why not agree to the mediation and we can all come to some kind of agreement. If you have done nothing wrong you should have nothing to fear and nothing to lose. I'm tired of the petty arguments and would like to the matter closed. As I stated in another post on this page I am willing to compromise... are you? Cassandra581 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are really willing to "compromise" I suggest you do not press this matter at the current time, but get on with expanding the article. It is not worth all this expended effort, when it can be put to much better use. If an editor is contesting its inclusion, then it is probably better that it is not included. To be honest, your explanations re. your involvement or lack of it in the site stretch the bounds of credibility. Tyrenius 19:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that expanding the article is of importance which is why if you read a little further up I have commented on woodrow/asim's post for corrections and additions to the article. I'm also trying to write a little more in depth section for the prohibitions section of the article. I also have suggestions for reorganzing the article a little bit to make it easier to understand and follow. However, the subject is far to complex and vairied to list everything on this article. That is why the external links are important as well. And I would prefer to come to a working agreement with Mel on this and have said before it could be any number of other resource sites that are also good but he does not want to allow any of them. That is why I'm opting for further mediation. Also, not pressing the matter would not be a compromise that would be an act of submission. Compromise means both parties must give and take a little. See also [8] Cassandra581 06:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

These are great ideas for the article. It can easily be over twice the length it is now. See Featured articles. You are obviously knowledgable on the subject, which is great. Seriously - write the article first, then worry about the links later. You will probably find that you have used some of the sites for references, so they will appear in the Notes anyway and will therefore not be necessary in the external links section anyway. There's time to sort out the external links at leisure and by involving other editors. Of course there should be an external links section. Don't get bogged down in a loggerheads with just one editor on the article. There is plenty of time. See what things look like in a month or so if necessary. Tyrenius 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

Wikipedia shouldn't like to a web site merely because it's a good site on the topic, because that's too vague a criterion. They should only be linked to when cited (in which case it isn't really an external link), or (in the case of an organisation or person, which doesn't apply in this case) to the person's/organisation's official web site. All of the links listed under "external links" should go. Andjam 11:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself recognizes that "good" links should be included this is from their External link page "Wikipedia is not a web directory; no page should consist solely of a collection of external links. Wikipedia always prefers internal links over external links. However, adding a certain number of relevant external links is of valuable service to our readers." Cassandra581 06:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Umm, I hit this page on random and... the pictures didn't seem to be too great... so, I did a search on flickr

These results are CC-BY-2.0 and can be freely uploaded here...

These results are CC-BY-SA-2.0 and are also free images...

I don't know what is a good image and I didn't look through them... but if any user knows what represents a good picture I recommend they search through those images. For those not familiar with Flickr note the "different sizes" link at the bottom right so you can get the full size image. I figured maybe linking these would help. gren グレン 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I know -- some of them are my images, in point of fact. *Smile* I'm on Flick as woodrow, and I use the CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. Having said that -- what do you dislike about the images on the article? I agree that there are always better images, yet at the same time I'm loathe to change for the sake of change. If you think we can display a variety better with a different image, I'm all ears as to what folks would judge as a good image, and why. I'm just wary about the perfect becoming the enemy of the good (enough). For now, I'm trying to focus on the text of the article, but that's just my personal calling...Woodrow, known to some as Asim 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

unnecessary sentence

So I removed the sentence "The name of the dance says all that is needed to be said," since it seemed really unnecessary. Natalie 22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

further copy-editing?

This article, while apparently having problems regarding sources, seems to be adequately copy-edited. So I took off the "needs copy-edit" tag at the top. Natalie 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Persian vs. Arabic Influences: Citations needed

To whomever changed "Arabic" to "Persian" -- I reverted because the vast majority of sources indicate an Arabic origin, with some Persian influences. Please feel free to cite a source for your assertion; see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more on that. I hope this is not a bother. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some minor spelling mistakes

I hope you do not mind my correcting the spelling of "shaquri" to "sharqi" and adding the meaning of it all in Arabic. I removed the sentence in the beginning stating that the term indicates something more exotic than local dance, because although the term "sharqi" means "eastern" and could indicate a different origin, the term "baladi" is most commonly understood as "local" or "folkloric", if you will, which would indicate quite the opposite of not local or different.

Bellydancing vs. Burlesque

MauraZebra: I have a number of friends who do both forms of dance; I've never heard of anyone claiming that "belly-work" is Burlesque-specific. Morocco's research, cited in the article itself, points to historical references to belly work in the Middle East that pre-date Burlesque (as does Belly Dance itself in the West).

Having said all that, I'm good with the edit because that line kind of sucked, anyway. I'd just like to get a citation about belly work being Burlesque-specific, 'cause I'm curious like that.  :) Woodrow, known to some as Asim 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Asim, I am new to Wikipedia and I hope I have found the correct way to respond to your inquiry.

I have to apologize for not remembering exactly what I changed, but I do remember that the problem was not the word 'belly work' but 'entice men' or something similar and that the sentence(s) containing these words were at the very beginning of the article, which lends them a great weight. I also apologize for not being much of a scholar on these things, but from what I have read I do agree that Morocco is an authority on these things and that she does state that belly work originated long before American burlesque. But she also hates the phrase 'belly dance' for the same reasons that I objected to the sentence(s) that I deleted. You can find a very good article by Morocco herself on her website at http://www.casbahdance.org/CHILDBIRTH.htm which explains objection. Here's the first paragraph: 'Danse du ventre, or, to use the deliberately coined American misnomer, belly dancing, is not at all what Western society thinks it to be, i.e. a dance of sex and seduction. This is an erroneous and ignorant belief, reinforced and perpetrated by stage and movie writers too lazy to do research. Neither is it a 'belly' dance, since much more is involved than just the stomach muscles.'

My understanding from reading material such as 'Looking for Little Egypt' is that what we know call 'belly dance' received its serious introduction to American society in the late 1800s but in a very very few years (two? three? years after the Chicago Exposition) had gone from a serious demonstration of middle-eastern dancing to a plague of burlesque shows nationwide, something belly dancers to this very day have to contend with on almost any gig. The reality is that there are dancers in the Middle East who are also prostitutes, out of necessity or choice; and there are exotic dancers and burlesque performers in America dressed in belly dance costumes who are enticing men, our of necessity or choice; but the art form of the good, the great, and the best belly dancers no more revolves around enticing or seducing people than ballet, flamenco or modern dance forms do. IMO, anyway.

I hope this is the answer to your question. Maura

move?

since this is the article on oriental dance in general, I suppose the article should be moved there? "Oriental dance" includes styles that can by no stretch be called "belly dance" (Uzbek dance, Armenian dance), and "belly dance", while certainly in common use, is a term coined by "harem fantasy" notions of Orientalism. dab (𒁳) 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a more generic stub on Middle Eastern dance. Someone created a redir at oriental dance but created is as a double redirect, so it was broken. I've edited that redir to point to this article, and I've added a note at the top that will hopefully be acceptable to all and sundry. :-) I don't believe that there is any point moving this page to oriental dance and then having belly dance redir back to there - it makes no difference. --Athol Mullen 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Split?

I know that there is a lot of discussion here about the length of the article. Looking at it, I think that it might be worth considering splitting out the Belly dancing in the Western world section to a sub article. --Athol Mullen 00:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Belly dancing in pop culture

I have seen belly dancing in a number of movies (none of the titles come to mind right now... sorry). Does anyone think this would be valid information to add into the "Belly dancing in pop culture" section? Would this be a new section altogether? Personally, I can say that I would have liked to have found this kind of information in the article. Thanks for input. - a novice wikipedian Kealakekua 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sharqi or sharki?

I noticed that the article uses both sharqi and sharki. I understand that, because of romanization issues, both usages are probably more or less correct, but I do think that we should have a consistent spelling on this page. Normally, I would go with the one that's more common, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know which spelling that is. I suspect sharqi is more common, since it's more common in the article, but I'll leave that decision to more knowledgeable editors. --ChandlerH 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NO mention that it started in India?

There are many people who blieve belly dancing originate from India, and yet nowhere in this profile is that mentiond as a possiblity? 71.119.255.31 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)