Talk:Hip hop dance/Archive 1

Archive 1

90's New Jack Swing

Um, Did everyone forget 90's New Jack Swing Era of Hip Hop?! This is a major MAJOR hole in this article!!!! from about 89-94 Hip Hop went from Old School to the New School. Kid n Play (basically the CHarleston), the Robocop, the wop, The RUnningMan, the Roger Rabbit, etc... If ur gonna talk about HIP HOP DANCE, WHERE THA HECK IS 90'S NEW JACK SWING MENTIONED!?!?!
link: [1] New Jack Swing
Link: [2] Kid N Play, "Gittin' Funky"
Kid n Play, The Fresh Prince, Leaders of the New School, Salt n Peppa, Janet Jackson, etc were all huge (and important) innovators of what is considered Hip Hop Dance today!!!! THIS IS MORE HIP HOP THAN POPPING AND LOCKING WHICH ARE MORE FUNK STYLES THAN HIP HOP!!!! Its like saying Parliament, George Clinton, & Zapp and Roger are Hip Hop. THEY AINT! They are FUNK.
Also noteable dancers: Mop Top, Link, Budha Stretch, etc were big influences in the early 90's!! (who also happen to b huge influences in post 2000 style House Dancing.
Sheesh, WHoever wrote this article must've been born post 1999, c'mon now...they talkin bout Krumping & ABDC as Hip Hop?! (Drew Looner)

Please stop typing in all caps with exclamation points after your comments. Your aggressive approach does not make people open to wanting to address your concerns. To answer your comments/questions New Jack Swing is a music genre, not a style of dance so it doesn't make sense to talk about it in an article about dancing. If this dance did at one time exist, it's not notable enough to talk about because even the article on New Jack Swing doesn't make any mention of associated dances. So if the mother article doesn't mention them, why should this one. If what you're referring to is hip-hop social dancing, be advised there is an article on the history of hip-hop dance with an large section dedicated exclusively to the history of hip-hop social dancing. If you want to read about these associated dances, go there. Your belief that popping and locking are not hip-hop and that Janet Jackson is more hip-hop than they are is your opinion. I highly doubt you would garner much support in your stance especially since Popin' Pete himself states in this article that hip-hop includes breaking, uprock, freestyle, popping, and locking. Are you really going to disagree with one of popping's pioneers? For the record, popping and locking being funk styles are mentioned in the History section—the first section—of the article. Please read articles in their entirety prior to criticizing them. Finally, if you're going to hate on articles (not just this one but any article) instead of being passive and ranting on the talk page, WP:BEBOLD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. //Gbern3 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lyrical Hip Hop and CWalk

1. This article seems to have been spammed by Fox and So You Think You Can Dance people. A disproportionate amount of space is given to the show, and to something called "Lyrical Hip Hop," which has, as far as I can tell, a very tenuous existence stemming from the above show.

2. "Lyrical hip-hop" yields 629 hits on Youtube as of 8/10/09. Cwalk yields 60,000. Yet crip walk is described here as a "fad dance." Both lyrical hip hop and cwalk should be moved under Styles. The LHH section should be drastically reduced. More weight needs to be given to legitimate hip-hop choreographers like Laurie Ann Gibson, Big Lez, and Rosie Perez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.161.233 (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with you. I disagree that a disproportionate amount of space has been given to SYTYCD. I think ABDC is mentioned A LOT more than SYTYCD and with good reason since that show is more focused on hip hop dancing than SYTYCD is. I saw that you took the reference to SYTYCD out of the history section and I'm glad you did; I agree with that decision. It was an orphan sentence that just seemed to come out of nowhere. If the history section was more developed then maybe that reference at the end would make sense but at the moment it stood out like a sore thumb which is why it looked like spam.

I agree that LHH has a tenuous existence. It is after all very new, only two years old. However, I disagree that it should be moved to the styles section for this very reason. I think the styles section should consist only of the main, most developed, most recognizable styles that have a significant amount of history behind them and that have been embraced not just nationally but internationally. LHH (and the c-walk) has not reached this level yet. I also disagree that it should be drastically reduced. If it had it's own article than I would agree with you. The main styles: popping, breaking, locking, krumping have their own articles. Other topics mentioned such as Juste Debout, tecktonik, and the various dance crews have their own articles as well so readers can go there if they want more information. But since LHH does not I think it's important for readers to know the history behind it especially since LHH came out of Hip Hop dance. 24.93.205.160 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the edits from your IP address seem to be related to the promotion of D'Uomo bio and brand. This is against Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liompa (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're mistaken on policy. All of my edits are not related to the D'umo "brand". All of my edits are related to pages that have to do with dance. The D'umo pages are two of them as well as Dave Scott, Funk styles, Boogie bots, Hyphy, this article, and all the others. I do not add information about the D'umos to pages that have nothing to do with them and whenever I do make edits I always provide a reference which is why it's not a violation of policy. It's only a violation if the edits are not verifiable (WP:VERIFY), my own opinion (WP:NOR), and/or unbalanced (WP:WEIGHT, WP:SOAP, WP:COAT). This article is about hip hop dance. Nappytabs is a line of dancewear made specifically for hip hop dancers and it's mentioned in the dance industry section of this article. How is this against policy? This is completely and totally relevant to this article. As far as lyrical hip hop, that section was added in June by Esprit15d^{(talk|contribs)}, an administrator. My point being other people out there in Internet/Wikipedia land feel that the D'umos have contributed something important too.

Because typing has no tone this is going to sound rude but I mean this in a cordial way. Please start signing your comments with four tildas. The fact that both comments before and after mine are autosigned and all respective edits/contribs have been to this page only, proves that you and 65.96.161.233 are the same person. You don't have to comment as two different people in order for me to listen to what you have to say... although I disagree with it. 24.93.205.160 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dance Moves

There should be a new section called " Printable Dance Moves". You have to have dance moves for people to print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.16.22 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

hip hop is one of the most danced daces in schools and culb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.254.167 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

B Supreme Festival

A user recently added the following under the international competitions section:

b.supreme Festival is a UK-based hip hop festival focusing on women in Hip Hop. B-girls from around the world descend on the Southbank Centre in London in April every year to compete in a series of battles which include locking, popping, breaking, waacking and newstyle and are judged by the likes of Rokafella, AsiaOne, Aruna, Kymberlee Jay and Sun-Sun. Previous winners include Movie One (Esp), Dora (Hun), Sun-Sun (UK), Pandora (USA), Nadia (Rus). The festival also showcases performances from international crews, workshops, graff exhibitions and MCing from up-and-coming UK talent. Previous performers include Decadance theatre, Unos Dos Tres, Haus Fraus, Venus Fly Trap, Boy Blue, DJ Sarah Love, Speech De Belle.

Seems like a good event but the entire thing was unsourced, not to mention it's written for hip-hop heads (rather than for a casual reader), along with the occasional misspellings and bad grammar (to all the UK people reading this, I'm not referring to the BE spelling) so I reverted the edit. I'm copying the prose to this talk page to see if anyone can find a good source about this event being an actual competition (rather than just a festival). I haven't been able to find good sources. The official website that I got off Google doesn't work. I got the message "Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here." Blogs and MySpace links do not count as reliable sources so I ignored those. The other web sources stated that it was a festival but said nothing about a competition. This source from 2MF magazine was OK but it made it seem like the event was more about entertaining and performing, like a festival should be, with the competitive aspect being secondary. If this is more of a country specific festival than a competition, I think it would be more appropriate in the hip-hop theater article under the festivals section. The international competitions section list 10 major events, nine of which have regional qualifying tournaments. Additions should be comparable. // Gbern3 (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Less focus on breaking?

As a dancer, I feel somewhat put off (though that's not exactly the right term) by the fact that this page seems to be solely about the breaking aspect of hip-hop. If you're familiar with hip-hop, you'll realize that breaking is almost a separate style of dance; it isn't necessary to know how to dance one style to dance the other. So perhaps a section could be added on the actual 'dance' part of hip-hop (I view breaking and co. to be more of acrobatic tricks than anything)? -- Zeph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.52.145 (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article? (<--Not a rhetorical question, I'm being serious) The popping section alone is three times the size of the breaking section. What do you mean by adding a section on the "dance" part of hip-hop? That really confuses me considering the entire article is about hip-hop "dance". If you're talking about the kind of hip-hop dance you see in music videos then that's already in the article. Read the Dance Industry section, also much bigger than the breaking section. One more thing: as you already know editing Wikipedia articles is open to the public so if you feel that something should be added to article about the "the actual 'dance' part of hip-hop" (although I really don't know what you mean by that), feel free to do it. You don't have to make a suggestion on the talk page first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.148.20.25 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And as ANOTHER dancer, who is a BBOY, popper, locker, krumper, turfer, memphis jooker, i can tell you, that maybe a 33.3% of breakin is acrobatic, there is MANY diff. "parts" to bboyin such as toprock, uprock, downrock, freezez, flexibility, (this is where the "acrobatics" kick in), power(flares, windmills, air flares etc) and tricking(front/back/side flips, aerials, b twists etc) NOW with that being said, "If you're familiar with hip-hop, you'll realize that breaking is almost a separate style of dance" bboying IS the original hip hop dance, im a HUGE hip hop head, and no i dont mean rick ross, plies and all those talentless losers that are mainstream, i mean old school, golden age, some early 2000s, and underground (nujabes, immortal technique, atmosphere, 2mex, aceyalone, freeway, brother ali, CYNE) and all the other pillars obviously breakin, writing(graff. such as cope2, cornbread[og status when it comesto writing], nox, JA etc) djing (dj noize, grandmaster flash, jazzy jeff, disco wiz etc) and the "5th pillar" beatboxing (razhel, fat boyz, roxorloops, oslim, ehzra etc) i can tell you that to an extent ur kinda sorta almost 25% right due to the fact that bboying can be done to: soft rock and some rock, latino/latino influenced music, african/african influenced music, funk, some disco and even some classical music and pretty much anything if ur skilled enough to stay on beat, BUT the dance was created to go along with the "breaks"(when the dj would cut out the words and other jibber jabber in the songs and just leave the beat) in hip hop/funk songs, the FIRST hip hop dancers were BBOYS and the most feared dancers in the world are...BBOYS (as much as people say "man i aint afraid of anybody", they see a bboy and they try to bite frm other dances to beat them why??because their own dance alone is not enough to win against a bboy)....intellectualbboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.105.136 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Many would argue that Popping & Locking are a separate genre called Funk, rather than hip hop. To say Locking & Popping (as well as Roboting, mannequin, Gliding, Strobing, Strutting, Back Slide, Waving, Animation, Ticking, Tutting, etc...which are not even mention despite the fact Popping & locking are MAIN SUBJECTS of this "Hip Hop" page) are Hip Hop, is to say that Parliament, George Clinton, Zapp n Roger are Hip Hop. They are not. They are FUNK STYLES! Altho Funk was influenced by the same sources as Hip Hop, it was a different branch. Howvr, there are areas where the Hip Hop & Funk Styles overlap: I would definitely consider Mr. Wiggles & Mr Freeze an example of where the 2 converge. But to say all Popping/Locking is Hip Hop is to say all Graffiti heads are Hip Hop. They are not. Many were rock&rollers, Heavy Metalists, Punk Rockers, and skaters who might even take a whiz on Hip Hop culture -in other words, they could care less about Hip Hop. (DrewLooner)

"Hip hop" vs "hip-hop"

Judging from the articles hip hop, hip hop music and Category:hip hop, the convention on the English Wikipedia is to spell "hip hop" without an hyphen (i.e. not "hip-hop"). However, my attempt to move this article to hip hop dance was reverted by User:Gbern3 with the argument "The use of a hyphen is grammatically correct. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/576/01/ Rule #1 http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp Rule #4".

I don't see how this argument is relevant. Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title emphasizes consistency: "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". The discussion on how to spell "hip hop" concerns the whole hip hop article series on Wikipedia and should thus be held at the main article talk page: Talk:hip hop. Until a change of consensus is reached there, we should use the same spelling as the main article to stay consistent.

On the discussion of which spelling to use, "hip hop" is a noun not an adjective, so the grammatical rules linked to above concerning adjectives do not hold. However, "hip-hop" is a popular alternative spelling, so it's not incorrect per se. Still, until I see strong historical sources or popularity reports favoring "hip-hop", I trust that this discussion has already been settled at the main hip hop article, and I assume that the consensus was that "hip hop" is the best spelling to use on the English Wikipedia. - Wintran ^(talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hip-hop as a cultural movement is a noun. However, when talking about hip-hop dance, dance is the noun and hip-hop is the adjective describing the type of dance. So in this instance, it is in fact grammatically correct to use a hyphen. For this article, since hip-hop (with a hyphen) is grammatically correct, I don't think it should be moved just because most of the other articles about hip-hop don't have a hyphen. After all, it's common sense for an encyclopedia to have good grammar. Although hip-hop with a hyphen may not be consistent under WP:CRITERIA, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, why change it to not having a hyphen when without a hyphen it's spelled incorrectly. WP:NOTBUREAU states "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." //Gbern3 (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Update - After re-reading my comment, I just noticed that in both cases hip-hop is an adjective. Culture, dance, music, fashion—these are the nouns; hip-hop as an adjective identifies the culture and the dance, music, fashion, etc. associated with it. I probably should have said this before, but it just dawned on me. //Gbern3 (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hip Hop vs Rap POP

Street Styles vs Studio Choreography? everything in this article is either post 2000 references to RapPop/RB mutations to choppy references to breakdancin (inluding Popping & Locking, which are actually FUNK, more than HipHop) WITH NO MENTION of 90's era -a key and important bridge from the streets to the studio!! Krumping, Turfing, The Dougie, etc... is not really hip hop, per say. it is Pop or Gangster. Just bcs brown people do it doesnt mean its Hip Hop. in fact it is more a trendy mutation of HipHop mixed with a bastardization of R&B-of-old: from Lionel Richie, Stevie Wonder, Barry White, etc...to Kieth Sweat, Bell Biv Devoe, Etc...now to Jay-Z, Soulja Boy, Chris Brown, and whats-his-name, oh yes, Justin Beaver. HAHA, I know, Beiber). This aint Hip Hop. Its top 40 Pop Music. (DrewLooner)

Dance history flowchart

This flowchart was added toward the end of the article just above the footnotes section but I removed it for two primary concerns: (1) it's hard to read because the words are too small—you have to click on it twice just to get a readable version—and (2) there are no sources/references used to prove that this is how dance evolved WP:VERIFY. The caption says that information in the flowchart can be found in the article but that's not actually true. For example,

• The flowchart list "Lady Style" as a style of dance that came out of pop/commercial dance and evolved into new style hip-hop. Lady style is not mentioned at all in the article. From what little I know about it, it has something to do with salsa so if anything it should be coming out of the salsa box rather than the pop/commercial box.
• It also list lyrical hip-hop as a predecessor to new style hip-hop when lyrical hip-hop actually came after. This is stated in the article in the dance industry section with references. There would be no lyrical hip-hop without new style hip-hop.
• It also says that Russian popular dances contributed to the development of breaking. This is not supported in the article.
• It also says that Dancehall came from jazz dance and that dancehall influenced the creation of hip-hop dance. This is not supported in this article, the jazz dance article, or the dancehall article and is highly unlikely considering that jazz dance comes from the U.S. and dancehall comes from Jamaica.
• It also list new style hip-hop as a different dance style than hip-hop instead of being a substyle of hip-hop.
• It's suppose to be a "genealogical tree" of dance but it doesn't even mention tap dance which is a major dance style practiced in the U.S. and abroad. This shows that this chart is WP:BIAS and lacks WP:NPOV.

Last of all, all six of these examples prove that the flowchart is original research WP:OR. Because it's original research, unreferenced, and just hard to read, I have removed the flowchart. Only if references are added to prove the validity of the chart, I think it would be better if a link to the flow chart was placed under a "See also" section since the focus of the flowchart is about dance in general and not solely about hip-hop dance. Other comments are welcome. //Gbern3 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER CONCERNING CHART — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboymor-E (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please let me answer the previous critics concerning the flowchart. But first I want to point out that the purpose of this chart is to make it easy for people who want to have a broader view of dance evolution to get it at a glance. Having a view of the connections between various dance styles also helps understanding better hip-hop specifically. It is very fast and convenient to read this kind of chart and then read the text of other sources for more details. The fact that sometimes a picture is worth thousands words isn't altered by the number of clicks needed to see the picture : so the argument of how many clicks are necessary to enlarge the picture in Wikipedia cannot be serious and is irrelevant.

Response - I understand your position as far as wanting to help people understand dance with an illustration but the flowchart you designed goes against all three of Wikipedia's core content policies: neutrality, verifiability, and no original research. For good reason, those three policies aren't very flexible on Wikipedia because without them people would be able to advance really off the wall fringe theories that no other source could support. Not saying that your thoughts are really far out there but that was the catalyst that put the original research policy in place. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the content of the chart, I agree that some issues are open to debate, and that's why I'm answering :

• It is supposed to be a "genealogical tree" of dance but it doesn't even mention tap dance which is a major dance style practiced in the U.S. and abroad. This shows that this chart is WP:BIAS and lacks WP:NPOV.

-- In fact you can see that Taps are mentionned first as an example in the Jazz square.

Response - I apologize for criticizing you about not having tap. I do see tap dance in the jazz box. I tend to think of tap as it's own style of dance but I have heard that tap came out of jazz dance and this is in fact supported in both the tap and jazz dance articles. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• It also says that Russian popular dances contributed to the development of breaking. This is not supported in the article.

--That's indeed not supported in this article. However It is true that russian popular dance contributed to footwork specifically and breaking in general.

Response - You need a reference for this because it's not supported in this article or the b-boying article. Just because some moves may look like they influenced the creation of others doesn't mean it actually happened that way. I'll give you another example. The flowchart also says that capoeira contributed to the development of breaking but even b-boy Crazy Legs says this isn't true in this interview. He's one of the oldest b-boys around. I've read a lot about hip-hop dance but I've never heard anything about Russian styles contributing to it's development. This talk page is definitely the first time I've heard that. So if this is true, a reference is needed to show it. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• It also says that Dancehall came from jazz dance and that dancehall influenced the creation of hip-hop dance. This is not supported in this article, the jazz dance article, or the dancehall article and is highly unlikely considering that jazz dance comes from the U.S. and dancehall comes from Jamaica.

--You may have a point in the sense that African dance influenced Dancehall, but maybe not through afro-american Jazz.

--Dancehall moves are surely a part of the Hip-Hop arsenal of moves however. Hip-Hop dancing is a generic term adopted to design a bunch of styles as shown in the chart, and the inclusion of dancehall is legitimate among many hip-hop dancers.

Response - But you don't include dancehall as being from hip-hop dance (that would almost be like assimilating the dance and I don't think you mean that). The flowchart includes hip-hop dance as being from dancehall. As far as hip-hop being a generic term, I think you're thinking of street dance. I'm aware that hip-hop dance has many substyles but the big street dance umbrella includes both hip-hop dance and dancehall. Just because a hip-hop dancer can do dancehall does not make dancehall (dancing), hip-hop dancing. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• The flowchart list "Lady Style" as a style of dance that came out of pop/commercial dance and evolved into new style hip-hop. Lady style is not mentioned at all in the article. From what little I know about it, it has something to do with salsa so if anything it should be coming out of the salsa box rather than the pop/commercial box.
• It also list lyrical hip-hop as a predecessor to new style hip-hop when lyrical hip-hop actually came after. This is stated in the article in the dance industry section with references. There would be no lyrical hip-hop without new style hip-hop.
• It also list new style hip-hop as a different dance style than hip-hop instead of being a substyle of hip-hop.

--Concerning those 3 points, it's really a tough one, because things are not stricly defined, boundaries are not clear and the most famous dancers argue between each other about these issues (as shown by Buddha Stretch quotes in the article for example). On these issues, any reference added wouldn't have so much value in the sense that another reference could contradict it. So in the chart, I presented it in a certain way that I'm going to justify, but it is open to debate and the chart can be modified of course.

Response - You may not agree with the use of references since one might contradict another but they have to be there and if what you're illustrating in the flowchart is wide-spread and true, you shouldn't have trouble finding them. That quote that you referred to by Buddha Stretch is referenced. If you use a referenced quote by him to justify how boundaries aren't clear then you're kind'of contradicting yourself by saying you don't feel you need to use references to back up all your other claims in the flowchart. References have plenty of value. The use of references in the article and the lack of references for the chart is what made me revert your edits. Policies in place that support the use of references is what empowered me to do it. If you use them, they will empower you and add value to your chart as well. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically, there is street hip-hop dancing, mtv commercial hip-hop dancing, and studio hip-hop dancing. What I called Hip-Hop in the chart is the style developped in the street. That's how it was first defined, and shouldn't be changed. What I called New Style hip-hop dancing is the rest : mtv and studio influenced. I defined it as the combination of Pop, lady style, and lyrical : What I called Pop/Commercial is the mtv commercial hip-hop dancing. Lady Style is a term I heard several times to design strip-dance classes in studios, or strip moves used in mtv commercials (like Pussycat Dolls for example). I felt it required to be mentionned separately because it is a style of its own which expresses woman sensuality. Lyrical hip-hop designs the studio evolved hip-hop dancing. It's watered down hip-hop and with influences from Michael (and jazz), but it's constantly evolving. --I know that there can be a debate whether what I called lyrical hip-hop is in fact the new-style hip-hop : However, since these terms are not official and clearly defined (which once again makes any reference not 100% relevant), I think that a term is needed for the whole mtv/studio hip-hop concept : and the term "new-style hip-hop" already in use is best suited in my opinion. I'm aware some issues are open-issues, but the benefit of a flowchart shouldn't be lost for these reason IMO. Bboymor-EBboymor-E (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Response - Unfortunately, your entire last paragraph is a very good example of WP:SYNTHESIS and bias/lack of neutrality. Everything you've stated above may be backed up by other sources but since you haven't provided them, the assumption is no other sources can verify what you've said so it must be your own belief. After all, MTV/commercial dancing came from the studio but you define these as two separate styles. You explained how lyrical hip-hop evolved from studio (new style) hip-hop but the flowchart shows the reverse. I had never heard of lady style until I saw your flowchart. I only thought it came from salsa because when I google[d] it, that's what came up in the results. So whoever published that web content has another definition for what that style is which is another reason why references are essential. With a reference showing that lady style is how you defined it—a sensual style of new style dance—you could actually justify why how you describe it is the right definition. Otherwise, it's original research and instead of helping other readers to understand how dance evolved, your just helping other readers understand your position. You can't mislead others who you want to help by putting in the caption that the article supports what's in the flowchart when your reasoning along with the flowchart you created illustrate the opposite. On a side note, you may offend feminist and/or gay males with your definition of lady style since it only applies to females and only when they dance sexy and it's only at this time that the style has a name. That note is just my opinion though, perhaps I'm overthinking it. Sorry if anybody reading this is offended by what I think might be offensive.

You're an editor with good intentions but sources are absolutely necessary. WP:VERIFY states that "...you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." So technically, if the flowchart presented information that was widely believed to be true anyway then technically it wouldn't need sources. However, since the information presented is not widely believed--like lady style and pop/commercial are which you acknowledged yourself were not official or clearly defined--then it has to have references. I can't stress references and sources enough. In order for the flowchart to be valid, not original research or synthesis, and not challenged by editors like me, you've got to have references. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Response Here is an updated version of the chart :

-Changed the connection to Dancehall. (however I still include dancehall as a hip hop style : I rarely see dancehall classes in studios for example, and all the dancehall techniques and choreos I learnt in several studios were in hip-hop classes. -removed Lady Style since I cannot find references, I found a few studios that teach Sexy Style but it's not official reference. Anyway it's possible to consider it a substyle of Pop/Commercial. -Couldn't find conclusive reference about russian and capoiera origins to breakdance, although there are on the net open debates whether capoiera influenced breakdance : nobody can answer that conclusively, my opinion is it did, and same for russian. It's legitimate to inform people about the existence of the debate about a possible influence, So I wrote "possible" on the chart. -How do I include references to a chart (in the case I'll gather a few...) ? Here is a version of the chart in order to share opinions Bboymor-EBboymor-E (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Add caption here

I think the best way to go about showing your sources would be in the form of footnotes. I doubt there is a way to add a references section to page located on the Commons like your flowchart is. The Commons is really just a place to store images so I doubt they have the same fomatting that would allow for a {{reflist}}. On that note, I suggest that you put the footnotes inside the chart (rather than separate from the chart) at the bottom underneath the last geneology line. You can either list them with letters like this article or numbers like this article. One way isn't better than the other. It just depends on editor preference. //Gbern3 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I just saw this article on wikipedia : "Breakdancing, developed in the 1970s, has many analogous moves. Indeed, many Brazilians had immigrated to the US, and particularly to New York, by that time, and would practice capoeira in the streets where it was able to influence this new dance form." taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira_in_popular_culture Bboymor-E (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a good example considering the sentence directly after the one you just quoted says "However, the original breakdancers of the early 1970s based their style primarily on actors in Asian kung fu films, rather than capoeira.[3]" //Gbern3 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Other sources of discussions concerning capoeira influences on breakdance : indeed a few famous capoeira practionners from Brazil started living and practicing in NY in the 70s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ACapoeira/Definitions http://www.capoeira-connection.com/main/content/view/174/83/ Also, the famous movie about history of breakdance : "The freshest kids : a history of the bboy" (2002), shows that different dancers have different opinions : you can hear Mr Wiggles (Electric Boogaloo) speaking about capoeira moves being included in breakdance, while Mr Freeze (Rocksteady crew) denies having seen capoeira practitioners in NY. Bboymor-E (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is debate about capoeira's influence on breaking. The article talks about this and the discussions you linked to show this to be true. However, your discussions still don't show that in the end breaking came from capoeira (even the movie, The Freshest Kids don't show this to be true). It shows the capoeristas saying that breaking is a child of capoeira and the b-boys saying that breaking is not. If capoeira had such a big impact, there would be no debate because even the b-boy pioneers and innovators would recognize it's role in the birth of breaking just like they recognize the role kung-fu movies, gymnastics, DJ Kool Herc, and James Brown played. In the end, the only thing both parties have agreed on in both discussions is that both art forms have African roots. //Gbern3 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the answer you (Gbern3) sent me on my talk page and saw that you deleted the chart. You seem to lack some common sense, and it also looks like you drown in the endless approach of logic instead of experiencing and focusing on the meaning of things. Extremely surprising when dealing with an article about dancing and art. It's really too bad for everyone. These arguments are rethorical games in which you seem to drown endlessly. For example out of so many, you imply I shouldn't have a Bboy username because I use the term breakdance instead of breaking : well I know that Breaking was used first but it's SO not the point... I would have appreciated that instead of spending your time writing this stuff, you could have invested your time in making a flowchart like mine which meets your editing criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboymor-E (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. I'm not looking to get into an argument. There is no reason to be rude to me because I removed the section with the flowchart especially when I took the time to explain to you why. Concerning your username, I said it was surprising to me that you call yourself a b-boy while referring to breaking as "breakdance" which—according to both the hip-hop dance and b-boying articles—is an incorrect term. If you were offended, I'm sorry. I was only trying to prove a point about why you can't use the hip-hop dance article to serve as a reference for the "breakdance" aspect of the flowchart. I'm not interested in making a flowchart about the history of dance. Even if I was, I don't know how to make one anyway so I wouldn't be any help. That's the beauty of Wikidedia. Some editors add references, others improve the tone and style of the writing, others (like yourself) add graphics and then the article becomes one big collective work. Pictures and in this case a flowchart can be very helpful in assisting a layman reader in understanding. I don't think a flowchart is bad. I just think it should be accurate. You may think I lack common sense but you lack experience on Wikipedia in thinking that an encyclopedia does not require logic or in more specific terms, thinking that information in an encyclopedia does not require sources. It's too bad that after my long-winded responses to explain this to you both here and on your talk page, you still don't understand why references are necessary. //Gbern3 (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A few dance crews in Northern California include MVP San Jose, VIP San Jose, Soulidified Project, Silhouette, Wrawsome, Wrebellious, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamabasuy (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)