From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 9 September 2013 for a period of one week. WikiProject icon
WikiProject Dance / Ballet (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ballet (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Performance or concert ?[edit]

The article says "Ballet is a type of performance dance, that originated in the Italian Renaissance courts of the 15th century, and which was further developed in France and Russia as a concert dance form." I don't know the difference, so I followed the links, which go to the same wikipedia page. Can someone correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Technique vs. training method[edit]

Dance technique (aka dance method) and training method are two distinct and very different topics, but many ballet-centric articles use these terms interchangeably or in ambiguous or meaningless ways. To clarify: Performance nuances (body movement and form) comprise dance technique, whereas vocabulary and teaching system (including syllabus, grades, levels, learning process, etc.) are aspects of a school's training method. A training method imparts knowledge of performance nuances, but those nuances constitute technique.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this issue has been largely ignored by WP authors and, as a result, most ballet articles contain inappropriate and inaccurate instances of these terms. For example:

  • From Vaganova method: "The Vaganova method is a method of teaching classical ballet". This is incomplete, as "method" may refer to either the training method or the dance method (technique) that is unique to the Vaganova style of ballet. More accurate: "The Vaganova method is a method of teaching classical ballet, and can also mean the style of ballet that is based on Vaganova technique."
  • From Royal Academy of Dance: "The most identifiable aspect of the RAD method is the attention to detail when learning the basic technique". Here, "RAD method" is initially ambiguous, but its meaning (a training method) becomes clear when we see that it pertains to learning technique.
  • From Royal Academy of Dance: "... a method of ballet technique was devised for the Academy". It's unclear to me what a "method of technique" is, but maybe this is what was meant: "... a new ballet technique and training method were devised for the Academy".
  • From Balanchine method: "The Balanchine Method is a ballet technique." According to this, the term refers exclusively to technique and not to a teaching method.
  • From Cecchetti method: "The Cecchetti method is a form of ballet instruction ... The method is a strict training system". As with Vaganova, this definition excludes technique as an alternative meaning.
  • From Italian ballet: "Italian ballet is a term used to describe the training methods and aesthetic qualities seen in classical ballet in Italy." So far, so good! This says "Italian ballet" can mean either the training method or the aesthetics (i.e., technique). However, the article goes on to say that "Italian ballet is recognised for two leading methods, the Cecchetti method and the training system of the La Scala Theatre Ballet School." Since Cecchetti method is defined to be a training method, this means Italian ballet is known for its training methods (plural!). Maybe it's just me, but when I think of Italian ballet, I think mostly about its aesthetic qualities.

As an aside, it would be extremely enlightening for authors to actually say something substantive about technique in ballet articles, especially in sections that have "technique" in the title. For a rare example of this, please see Balanchine method. Lambtron (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact that you are missing, is that when it comes to ballet technique and methodology, it just is ambiguous. You seem determined to clarify something that is impossible to explain, that is, unless you had an in depth knowledge of the content and developmental history of every method of ballet teaching. As for you thinking that the Balanchine article is a good example, I'd like to know your reasoning for saying that, as to my mind, all it does is highlight a few aesthetic points without any mention of the technique involved, or how it is achieved. Crazy-dancing (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary; the differences between technique and teaching are unambiguous, well understood, and widely recognized by the many professional dancers and dance teachers I know. Furthermore, absolutely no knowledge of history is needed to distinguish between technique and teaching. To deny these easily explained differences is to continue the sloppy and incorrect use of these terms in dance articles.
Regarding Balanchine method, you answered your own question: the article discusses aesthetics and performance nuances which, by definition, constitutes technique. Lambtron (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Aesthetics and performance nuances do not constitute technique, and this is where the ambiguity lies. Technique does create different aesthetics, but it's not as simple as that. Darcey Bussell for example, was not trained in the Balanchine method, but is equally capable of dancing Balanchine choreography as any dancer who has been through his training system. Having said that, Balanchine is the worst example, because there actually is NO 'codified' Balanchine technique, only a training method/school adapted to suit his choreographic style. Whether that constitutes a unique technique is not for me to decide.
The differences between teaching methods are well known, but what effect they have and how they are taught are very different. For example, someone can pick up an RAD syllabus and teach the work using their own method, but without teaching the correct RAD technique, as outlined in the official book "Technique of Classical Ballet". This book outlines exactly the technique the RAD method seeks to achieve, as "The Cecchetti Method of Classical Ballet" does for Cecchetti, and "Basic Principles of Classical Ballet" does for Vaganova. You wouldn't teach the RAD using Vaganova methodology, because it wouldn't work, as both methods are designed specifically to suit a particular technical preference.
The differences in methodology and technique are incredibly subtle and complex, and anyone who claims otherwise is incredibly arrogant in the extreme. If it was so easy to define, dancers and teachers wouldn't have been using these terms interchangeably for hundreds of years.Crazy-dancing (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I realize you feel strongly about this, but your arguments might be more effective if they omit personal attacks. Also, it is essential to strive for clarity in this discussion because lack of clarity is what is being discussed here, and that problem can't be resolved without concise and clear language.

In a nutshell, we seem to agree that dance method (i.e., technique) and teaching method are two different topics. I recognize clear differences between those topics, which I believe can be explained in plain English, whereas you sense the differences but believe they defy description. You acknowledge that problematic, ambiguous language has been used to discuss these topics "for hundreds of years". Opinions aside, isn't that reason enough to discontinue the use of ambiguous language? Does the historical use of ambiguous language justify its continued use in Wikipedia, and how will that serve to explain these topics to readers? Lambtron (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't personally attack anyone, only stated that is is incredibly arrogant for any one individual to think they can explain in simple terms, what most dance professionals would struggle to. And no, we don't agree. To be more correct you should have said that, where I sense the differences, I accept (from my knowledge of dance pedagogy), that to try and apply pure logic to ballet doesn't work, and to say "this is technique", "this is method", "this is teaching style", "this is choreography" is just not something you can do without there being endless contradiction and inconsistency. It's very much a chicken and egg subject. Crazy-dancing (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You are missing the whole point: I have been talking specifically about the many poorly worded explanations that any literate dance professional could explain in simpler terms, if an effort were made to do so. Lousy explanations are causing us to fail our primary mission: inform and educate readers. Lambtron (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Lambtron is correct that there is a distinction between the method used to teach ballet and the technique used to dance ballet. Different schools may teach the same type of dance in significantly different ways. Crazy-dancing is correct that significant ambiguity can exist between the two. How dance is taught affects how dance is performed, which affects how dance is choreographed, which affects how dance is taught, ad infinitum. Therein lies the inherent ambiguity. Where lines between instruction method and performance method are relatively clear, attempts to point out the distinctions would be valuable, though I am not qualified to illuminate those distinctions. —Catsquisher (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now THAT I can agree with catsquisher. Crazy-dancing (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Catsquisher. Clearly, performance and teaching are two different processes, yet those disparate topics have been carelessly and unnecessarily "bled" together in many dance articles. As a result, important parts of those articles are incomprehensible to dance experts and neophytes alike. Lambtron (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Dance terminology[edit]

There are two separate but related problems here. First, unclear language has been used unnecessarily in many dance articles, resulting in muddied distinctions between the performance and teaching of dance. That problem was my original focus and the reason I started this discussion. Since then, Crazy-dancing has drawn attention to a related problem: various dance jargon terms, including "technique" and "method", seem to lack rigorous definitions.

Terms such as "technique" and "method" serve as the foundations of many important explanations in dance articles, yet it has been suggested that these terms are not and cannot be well defined. If true, this is a serious problem that must be addressed, because it is neither sensible nor practical to try to explain something by way of undefined or poorly defined jargon.

I may be "incredibly arrogant in the extreme" (as Crazy-dancing put it), or maybe just naive, but I believe it's possible to define these terms precisely, in plain English. And regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, I believe that the proper corrective action is clear. If I am right, the terms should be defined posthaste and articles should be made consistent with the definitions. If, on the other hand, it really is impossible to define these terms, then they should never be used as the basis for any explanation and articles should be cleaned up accordingly.

So, how to resolve this? Should we pursue concise definitions for dance jargon and then bring articles into compliance with those definitions? Should we "throw in the towel" and declare the jargon undefineable and eliminate it from all "explanations"? Or should we just continue on as if this festering mess doesn't exist, and not concern ourselves with the quality of dance articles or whether those articles actually explain anything to readers?

Comments, anyone? Lambtron (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So far you seem to be the only person who has a problem with the ballet articles. I don't think they're a festering mess as you put it, on the contrary I think they are generally well written, clear and concise as they are. So a few bits of ballet jargon are ambiguous, does it really matter all that much? As long as the articles can be understood, I don't see what the problem is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's true that I'm the first to mention this problem, but I'd bet money that others have noticed it. I'm surprised that you think the ballet articles are clear, concise and well written. Have you even read the above discussions? What is a "method of technique"? Is the Cecchetti method really just "a form of ballet instruction" or is it something more? If it's impossible to articulate the meaning of a term in an uncontroversial way, how can one justify using that term to define something else? I thought it was clear from the numerous examples above that these are not just "a few bits" of jargon; they are in widespread use in dance articles, in ways that make entire passages difficult or impossible to understand. Lambtron (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The danger here lies in the creation of false distinctions in the name of consistency. Claude Bessy was in NY last month for the Dance Films Association festival at Lincoln Center. Opening night was a film about her (which the estimable Fabrice Herrault worked on for four and a half years!) Mlle. Bessy ran the Paris Opera Ballet School for thirty years, and one of the questions posed her after the screening had to do with its curriculum. Her reply was that they taught mostly French technique but also Cecchetti method.
What is method at one school may well be technique at the next and style at a third, and a school may teach different aspects of dance variously as style (more likely at the upper levels), technique and/or method. The concepts are every bit as inextricable when talking about choreographers or dance companies and ever moreso when dealing with contemporary dance.
This is not to say that there is not a good deal of unclear writing to be found in ballet (and dance) articles, much of it well-intentioned. Making distinctions between method, technique, and style would need to be done on a case-by-case basis and would need to be done by a person who had studied at the school or danced with the company in question.
The Wikipedia community is fond of guidelines and — and sometimes follows them to the point of foolish consistency. To promulgate across-the-board distinctions that working dancers do not observe between concepts that working dancers do not necessarily accept would be folly, if not worse. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

History - from fencing?[edit]

The history section here says that ballet developed from fencing but the main History of Ballet page does not say that. Can the two pages be made to agree? What is the source for this claim? Ed Avis (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "ballett" shouldn't redirect here[edit]

In the Renaissance, the "ballett" (two Ts) often referred to a lively madrigal; the term "madrigal" at the time more commonly referred to slower, more serious pieces of choral music. Of course, the historical spelling was not a differentiating factor in those centuries, but in today's applications (ex. a search of a library catalog) the term "ballett" most likely references choral music, while the term "ballet" most likely references the dance form.

I'm no linguist, so bring on the responses! —The Realms of Gold (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no mention of "ballett" in madrigal (music). Is this mentioned in some other WP article? Can you cite reliable sources that show "ballett" is used this way? Lambtron (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

George Balanchine: Russian or Georgian?[edit]

I've always assumed Balanchine was Russian but it's possible that he was actually Georgian. Can someone confirm, please? Lambtron (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: This question has been answered. From a traditional western viewpoint he was Russian because he was born in Russia, had a Russian mother, and learned and mastered ballet while living in Russia. From the Georgian and Russian perspective, he was Georgian because his father was Georgian. Lambtron (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The "New York City Ballet Method"[edit]

This article says Balanchine style is commonly called "New York City Ballet Method", but NYCB doesn't use that term and the only other places I've seen it used are on the many mirrors and forks of this page. Should this statement be removed? Lambtron (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove... it is sufficient, and more accurate to say that the company was founded by Balanchine, therefore his work forms the core of the repertory and the company continues to emulate his style (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean?[edit]

I've been working long hours on ballet articles and I've returned to a problem that was previously discussed but never resolved. Before elaborating, let me just say that I mean no disrespect to other editors who have worked on related articles, and I am not intending to be critical. My only goal is to improve my understanding, and the usefulness, of these articles. The problem pertains to the definitions of Vaganova method, Cecchetti method, and Bournonville method. Since all three articles have the same issue, I'll focus on Vaganova. The lede says Vaganova method is "a ballet technique and training system", but it's not clear to me what that means. I've thought quite a lot about this and come up with several possible interpretations:

Vaganova method is:

  1. a ballet training system used to teach ballet technique. A dancer could learn the same technique from any training system.
  2. a ballet training system used to teach ballet technique that has proprietary (Vaganova-specific) characteristics. A dancer could learn most of the technique from any training system, except for the proprietary characteristics.
  3. a ballet training system used to teach completely proprietary ballet technique. A dancer would not learn any of the technique from another training system, though a skilled dancer might be able to learn it by herself.
  4. a ballet training system, and the term can also refer to the (semi-)proprietary ballet technique taught with the training system."
  5. an inseparable "system" consisting of a ballet training system and the proprietary ballet technique it teaches. It's impossible to independently learn the technique, or even exhibit it when not training, because training and technique are inseparable.

Which of these is correct, or is it something else altogether? Lambtron (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You have brought up this same issue many times before and you still don't seem to understand that it is not that simple to answer and, if you take it upon yourself to decide "this is the correct definition", it may not work in every case. The ballet profession uses words like style, technique, method etc. interchangeably, because of the disparate influences on the art form. What one ballet school may call their 'style', another will refer to as 'technique' for example and the bases for the difference in language are very subtle. It could be due to choreographic style, the curriculum, unique technical specifics of body positioning and alignment and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Please read the question again — it does address a single case. Consequently, one of the above choices must be a valid paraphrasing of the lede. But which one? Lambtron (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That's the point, even addressing a single case it depends on who you ask. Some people refer to Vaganova purely as a teaching method and only use it as such, some people consider it a style of ballet, some use elements of Vaganova schooling within their own training system, or try to replicate the aesthetic of Vaganova training without using her class structure etc. You won't get consensus of opinion on this, ballet professionals barely agree on these things. How all the articles are worded is fine, to say ballet technique and/or training method is perfectly acceptable to cover all bases. Balanchine is the only exception as he didn't have a 'codified' training system as such, although proponents of the Balanchine style will still insist that there is a very specific technical progression needed to produce a 'Balanchine dancer'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Your point seems to be that it's impossible to paraphrase the lede because there is no consensus on the definition of Vaganova method. Your theory about lack of consensus is plausible, though your examples could also indicate the term simply has multiple definitions. Either way, there's no reason the lede cannot be paraphrased, but any accurate paraphrasing will necessarily involve discussion of this critical issue. Until that happens, the lede is neither clear nor satisfactorily worded. Can you cite RSs that support your theory? That would be very helpful. Lambtron (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't put forward any 'theories' as you put it, I've just commented based on knowledge and experience gleaned from working in the industry. In my opinion, the wording of the relevant articles is perfectly adequate and concise, and there is no need for any paraphrasing. To say X is a ballet technique and training system is correct for the purposes of providing a broad explanation of the topic. There is no need for unnecessary semantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, that's an odd conclusion! If you know that there are different, commonly accepted definitions of Vaganova method, and you can state those definitions, why not just say so and enumerate them? Just as you did above, as it's done in other articles. The current lede is not a "broad explanation" of the topic; it's a potpourri of divergent definitions that purports to be The Definition. How can that be "correct" when you yourself have said there is no such single definition? I can assure you that other readers are unlikely to understand this topic while these key facts are omitted. I didn't understand it until I read your explanation -- that's why I'm here asking questions! Lambtron (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been written before: you seem to be the only one perceiving semantic problems that nobody else sees. Maybe your gripes would become clearer if you propose what needs to be changed. Then a concrete alterantive can be discussed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Until a few posts ago, I couldn't have proposed any changes because I didn't know what VM is -- that's why I started this thread. However, I now understand what VM actually is thanks to this helpful explanation given by anon user "Some people refer to Vaganova purely as a teaching method and only use it as such, some people consider it a style of ballet, some use elements of Vaganova schooling within their own training system, or try to replicate the aesthetic of Vaganova training without using her class structure". That's the best explanation of VM I've ever read! Here's what I get when I dissect and paraphrase that statement:

  • "Some people refer to Vaganova purely as a teaching method and only use it as such" → "Vaganova method is a ballet teaching method."
  • "some people consider it a style of ballet" → "The term may also refer to a style of ballet."
  • "some use elements of Vaganova schooling within their own training system" → "Some elements of the Vaganova teaching method are used in other ballet training systems."
  • "[some] try to replicate the aesthetic of Vaganova training without using her class structure" → "Some other ballet training systems teach the Vaganova ballet style."

Have I paraphrased this accurately? Lambtron (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ballet is not a type of performance dance[edit]

Ballet is a kind of stage play in which the characters only dance.(ref>Busby, Thomas; Arnold, Samuel. BALLET A Dictionary of Music Theoretical and Practical, London, UK: R. Phillips<ref) They dance with a particular style which includes the female dancers standing on their toes.(ref>Boot and Shoe Recorder: The Great National Shoe Weekly, Volume 79. 1921. Ballet Slippers for Dancing in Schools and Ball Rooms Boston, MA: Boot and Shoe Recorder<ref) The article should explain what ballet is. It's a play with no lines or songs. They dance using a particular style called ballet dancing, in which they wear skin tight clothing twirl around like figure skaters, the females stand on their toes and the men sometime lift the women into the air. Sounding like an expert talking to an expert is not what an encyclopedia is for. As any child knows, ballet is not a kind of dance, and makes me think the article was ocred from a book. Tap dancing is a kind of dance, and ballet dancing is a kind of dance. Is opera a kind of song? No. Therefore, ballet is not a kind of dance. (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that ballet (the subject of this article) involves ballet dancing but that's only one part of it. Maybe. Personally, I distinguish between "the ballet" (what you're describing) and "ballet" (the dance). --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think saying “ballet is a type of dance” is pigeon English. I think it's like saying musical is a type of song. It's a stage play. A ball is a type of dance. A prom is a type of dance. Ballet is a type of dancing, not dance. And, I think it should be described in the opening sentences of the article, but I don’t have the time or ambition to look for the references, at least today. (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is how Britannica defines it, "ballet, theatrical dance in which a formal academic dance technique—the danse d’école—is combined with other artistic elements such as music, costume, and stage scenery. The academic technique itself is also known as ballet." --NeilN talk to me 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Using “dance” as a synonym for dancing sounds foreign, jargonistic and pompous to my ear, like sticking French into your conversation when you know the other person doesn’t speak French. Therefore, it needs to be defined as “art of dancing” before being used in the article. Also, there is no description of ballet dancing anywhere in the article. There ought to be such a description because this is an encyclopedia. Also, I do not respect Britannica’s show-off writing style, which forgets what an encyclopedia is for. (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please note how Wikipedia works: it uses reliable sources to support its articles; Encyclopædia Britannica is such a source. You might also profit from reading Wikt:ballet. By the way, the description you offer is way too narrow: female dancers don't always stand on their toes, and not all ballets are plays. In ballet dancing, skin tight clothing and twirling around is not a defining property. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources about ballets relation to opera[edit]

Here are a few sources I cant add them due to editing via a basic kindle fire but hopefully someone else will help-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Does opera-ballet belong in the lede? It was common long ago, so perhaps it's better suited to the History section? Lambtron (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For the most part I liked the edits on the ballet opera connection except you removed the fact that many operas contain ballet sections. Also it should be noted that most ballets are narattive which is what I was trying to say by calling them theatrical.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Also the connection to opera should be briefly stated. I have provided sources above and will happily list examples of operas with ballet segments in them. I agree the focus is on ballet but you cant ignore the connection. Would you prefer I make a section talking about the connection and list a few examples of ballet companies in opera houses and operas with ballet segments?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please don't be offended, but I reject your hypothesis that "ballet is closely related to opera". For one thing, you base it on the claim that "many" ballet companies are stationed in opera houses, when in fact very few companies are stationed in opera houses; even if true, this would not establish a close relationship between the two arts. Similarly, a close relationship is not established by the "many operas containing ballet scenes". That's why I struck your hypothesis and its supporting statements from the article, and why I restored those changes after you reverted them. BTW, your revert stepped on an unrelated organizational change; in the future, please consider editing what you disagree with vs. blanket reversion.

As for opera-ballet, I agree it is relevant to ballet history, but not to the art of ballet because it never influenced the art in any significant way. Ballet is connected to lots of things, including opera, but that's not justification for mentioning them all in the lede. Please keep in mind that the lede should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article", and "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Even though it's clear that opera and ballet are not really all that closely related, particularly in modern times, I've left a mention of opera-ballet in the lede. I hope that you will, per MOS:INTRO, add enough material to the History section to justify its mention in the lede. Lambtron (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

More inline citations[edit]

I recently reverted a pending edit to this page because it changed vital content without citing a source. What I noticed was the passages the user changed didn't have inline citations to begin with. This article has abundant references listed; however, the article should contain more inline citations, particularly in the "History" section and in places where clarification is needed, in order to maintain verifiability. For example, which of the sources listed verifies that "the history of ballet began in the Italian Renaissance courts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries"? Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made a first-pass effort at cleaning this up by fashioning used refs into citations and classifying unused refs as "further reading". I added a cn tag for the passage in question, and agree that more citations are needed. Lambtron (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC concerning image "Ballet RAD.jpg"[edit]

I removed Ballet RAD.jpg from ballet because I feel it's not a good visual representation of ballet and is therefore unhelpful to readers. I've done this several times but the editor (who also uploaded the image) has reverted each removal. I've asked the editor to discuss the issue here before placing the image back in the article. Third party opinions about this would be appreciated. Lambtron (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Inappropriate image; nothing to suggest otherwise.--Aquegg (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

i disagree, the image is a good representation of contemporary ballet,the image shows an up to date athletic ballet dancer,relaxing after a 2 hour class,99.9% of people who type in "BALLET" on search engines expect to see the old classical music box ballerina on poite,therfore the image is appropriate for contemporary ballet Chrome23 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The image fails to illustrate or explain any meaningful aspect of ballet, contemporary or otherwise, and is therefore inappropriate for the article. As far as I can tell it's a somewhat unclear photo of an unidentified person, probably male, with a sign in the background -- not very useful for enhancing one's understanding of ballet. Lambtron (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; within the context of the article, the image serves no apparent purpose—the reader is simply left wondering why it is there.—Aquegg (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
in hindsight i agree,thank you.Chrome23 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)