Talk:Contra dance/Archive 3

Main pages: Talk:Contra dance and Contra dance

This page archives the discussion September 2007 - May 2008 about whether the contra dance article condones "booking ahead" and, if so, whether that is unfair.

Booking ahead

Your allegation that booking ahead is embraced by some communities is silliness. Go ahead, make my day. Name some. 199.125.109.137 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Booking ahead is fairly common where I dance in Winston-Salem. I'd remove this section though as it seems to be original research.--S Roper 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You would have to remove most of the article if you left out sections that were not referenced. Booking ahead may be common, but do any of the callers encourage it? 199.125.109.137 03:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I've never been to a dance where the caller encouraged booking ahead, but then I've never been to a dance where the caller voiced any opinion about the matter or got involved with the dancers' partner choosing in any way. I gather that you (199.125...) have, and I'm happy to believe it— I just must not have danced at the dances you've danced at. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "embraced," either— that makes it sound like it's been institutionalized. Certainly I've been at dances in the South- and Northwest where there was some booking ahead, and dances in New England and the Southeast where it's commonplace. (Visitors, people new to the area, and those who refuse to become involved in booking ahead may find it frustrating, but that has little effect on those who do it.) Maybe its limited to the corners of the country, or maybe it's just when I'm there, but it certainly happens. — eitch 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. If it was truly accepted the callers would tell you to do it. Of all the references, articles published, books written there is certain to be something written about the practice, particularly from CDSS I would think. Callers don't like to talk about it often, because they don't like to interfere with whatever the dancers want to do, but at crowded halls there are frequently warnings about keeping arms in close. I do not find booking ahead frustrating, but I don't do it either - other than very, very rarely. I stopped abruptly when one of the callers pointed out what was happening. It's funny that some dancers think that booking ahead means the dance after the next dance, yet just booking the next dance is all it takes to lock everyone out who is not currently dancing. 199.125.109.92 04:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But the question isn't whether it's the "right" thing to do, or whether you like it or some caller likes it. The fact is, in some places it's accepted. — eitch 16:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the question is, is there a reference that discusses booking ahead? Accepted is too strong a word. Booking ahead is used, abused, tolerated, but not accepted (other than by the clueless). If no reference can be found, just delete the whole section. (found lots of references) 199.125.109.119 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree Neutral POV is "absolute and non-negotiable." There are forums for discussing the morality of booking ahead (do like the references currently cited and post a letter, take it up with your dance community, etc) but it is not appropriate for WP to state an opinion on the matter. The references currently listed can be used to show that there is some tension around this question, that some people are strongly against booking ahead, and that there are communities in which dancers regularly book ahead, but not that booking ahead is "bad." — eitch 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me there. This is an encyclopedia and it presents the facts, right? The facts are that the dance community discourages booking ahead and still does it anyway. The Milwaukee dance even has on their dance page a warning to people traveling to other dances to bring your own partner to certain dances. I have no clue what you are disagreeing about. 199.125.109.137 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to hope people do things they're okay with doing. Following that, I assume the people who book ahead don't discourage booking ahead. These people are a part of the dance community. And so we have the facts: Some people don't like booking ahead, some people actively discourage it ("everyone," you would say), and some people don't have a problem with it and in fact do it. Presumably there are also people who don't get upset with dancers who book ahead but still don't do it themselves, people who only book waltzes ahead, and all sorts of other compromises. I'm not sure how to be more clear… Political Party A can say that Political Party B is wrong all they want, but the article "Politics in country X" shouldn't say, "[The things Political Party B stands for] are wrong." — eitch 08:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that, and none of the references use the word "wrong" either. The article says it's discouraged and common, same as the references, which refer to it as a problem, bad, difficult for newcomers and threatening to the "long tradition of welcoming new dancers and including all that attend in the evening events". 199.125.109.137 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Wrong," "bad idea," "not the way things should be done" — it's all the same thing. There are places where booking ahead is actively discouraged, and places where it is not. There are people who don't think it's a problem (see my previous post). There are, I gather, dances where increased booking ahead is changing and (at least according to some) damaging the dance. But there are also very strong dances in which booking ahead happens all the time. There is no reason to make invalid generalizations; the value of booking ahead is a matter of opinion.— eitch 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All the same? Hardly. It's like robbing banks. It's great for one person, the robber and terrible for everyone else. Until they get caught and then it's bad for them too. I remember seeing one person trying unsuccessfully to re-book ahead when they forgot they had booked ahead with someone they specially wanted to dance with and had booked that dance with someone else. As long as it continues to be a problem at some dances it is useful to retain a reference to the practice. When the practice goes away, just delete it. 199.125.109.33 02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful: I never gave an opinion on booking ahead. If you have to attack me, use my user talk page. There are people who discourage booking ahead. There are people who don't. If you continue to not discuss or come to terms with the latter I will request you be blocked from editing this article. — eitch 15:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just add, more commonly seen at some dances if you wish. It doesn't make it more commonly accepted. I think the topic of booking has way too many words and way too many references already. I would suggest leaving in the ten reasons reference and taking out the other two. On the other hand it would be nice when the missing 300 years from the history section gets filled in to include the rise of booking at the Greenfield dance and the fall of booking there due in part to the letters by David and Susan, two of the callers. 199.125.109.119 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to do, 199.125…: I'm going to take out the non-NPOV business. That means 1) any "it makes it hard to find partners" stuff which makes it sound like the WP article discourages booking ahead, and the whole point of NPOV is to not encourage or discourage anything, and 2) any "it creates a rush at the end of the dance," because those connote unpleasant experiences, and imply that booking ahead leads to unpleasant experiences, and so is to be discouraged.

My most recent attempt (it was so long in coming because I forgot) said nothing good or bad about booking ahead, and specifically acknowledged the fact that some people don't like it. You had provided links to callers asking dancers to not book ahead. You changed,

"Booking ahead (lining up a partner or partners ahead of time) is commonplace at some dances and actively discouraged at some others.[+ anti-booking ahead refs]"

(an attempt to satisfy your arguments in this discussion thread) to

"Booking ahead (lining up a partner or partners ahead of time) exacerbates the rush to find a partner, and is discouraged, although it is seen in some areas.[+ same refs]"

Now, the authority problem with "using wording from reference" (your edit summary) is that the references in question were chosen for the very reason that their authors don't like booking ahead. This is so obviously that, in light of this discussion thread, it is very hard to assume good (NPOV) faith in the motivation behind your edit.

The reference in question was chosen because it states that in the UK dancers come with a partner and stay with the same partner for the whole dance. It mentions booking ahead in connection with dancing in the US. All of the references were chosen because they mention booking ahead, not because they contained a particular view of booking ahead. You can't really mention booking ahead without also complaining about it though.199.125.109.92 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also the logical problem with the claim that booking ahead creates a rush. Booking ahead does not create a rush; booking ahead cuts down the number of potential partners. The tradition at some dances of finding a partner the second a dance ends so that the next dance can begin immediately is what makes dancers rush to find a partner so that the next dance can begin.

Picture if you will a Saturday dance in Town A (where I used to live) where 40 people show up. It's a relaxed dance, where people linger when each individual dance ends. The caller chats with the band, people walk around and get their next partners. Now picture a dance Town B (where I live now). On a slow night 100 people show up. Let's say an unrealistic(ally large) 60% book ahead. Now there are 40 people who have to find partners at the end of the dance. Now: Do they have to rush? I will grant you that it is conceivable that some mob effect kicks in: "All those other people have partners!!! I better get one fast!!!!!" But not only have I never heard of this effect but I can't think of a situation to study it in other than a dance, and so I doubt that it's been done. (I suspect not much psychology research has been done about effects seen at dances.)

That is to say, It's an interesting idea, maybe booking ahead makes non-bookers rush. But I bet that if the caller in Town B started putting longer breaks between each dance everyone, whether or not they had booked ahead, would take longer to line up. Either way, it's not even original research yet — it's just speculation. — eitch 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Debating topics in talk pages should be avoided. Since the matter is disputed, it is imperative that editors adhere closely to verifiability requirements. Finding the best available reliable sources and reporting only what they state is the best way to move forward. Relying on one's opinion or experience is original research. If there are questions about the reliability of a particular source, feel free to raise the reference at the reliable sources noticeboard. Vassyana (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean debating topics in talk pages is discouraged? ;-) Joriki (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

In my view, there are two separate problems here: Establishing roughly at what fraction of dances booking ahead is discouraged, and deciding how to accurately convey that fact in the text.

The current formulation, "is discouraged", is quite strong and implies to my mind that it's discouraged at almost all dances. I did a Google search and found these Notes on Calling Contra Dances, which say:

There has been a lot of discussion in contra dance forums about booking ahead, that is, signing up dance partners in advance of the dance, and how it can be addressed. I suggest it should not be addressed - the caller should not impose his/her preference in the matter on the dancers. Try to address the problems that you think are caused by booking ahead by encouraging positive acts, such as those noted above.

So it seems that not discouraging booking ahead is not only practiced but also recommended in at least one guide that a lot of people will find if they search for contra dance and booking ahead. I think this information should be taken into account in finding a new formulation of the disputed sentence.

Joriki (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you can 1) Say what it is 2) Say that it causes problems 3) Say that it is more common at some of the larger dances 4) Say that callers don't like to talk about it, though that last is not universal. However, I don't think it deserves that long a sentence. It is a pretty minor aspect of contra dancing. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that booking ahead is contentious, is discouraged in some communities, and is actively practiced in others. I also agree with the NPOV flag on the current wording in the Wikipedia article and would like to see that statement worded in such a manner that it's less contentious and more accurate. I don't agree with the present wording "cuts down the number of potential partners." First, for the person booking ahead, it's not necessarily that he has fewer choices. It's the people looking for a partner for that particular set who have fewer choices because of people who book ahead. Second, it's not just booking ahead where that's a problem. If someone does not quickly choose a partner, he might encounter a similar situation where the number of potential dancers diminishes the longer he takes to find his next partner. I'm going to adjust that line slightly to attempt to make it more neutral.

I dance at venues with varying populations: from one dance that commonly has fewer than 20 dancers to another dance that has around 40 at the beginning and end to perhaps around 100 during its peak time on a very good night to others that regularly have more than 150 dancers. At the smaller dances, it might be possible to dance with almost everyone of a particular gender during the entire dance (and some weeks, everyone present regardless of gender). People might still choose to book ahead. Even if someone is booking ahead, the number of potential partners is still generally the same, but not necessarily the same for any given set. If there is a gender imbalance at any of these dances, dancers generally try hard to book ahead to make sure they aren't sitting out. (A good remedy for this problem is a willingness to dance both gender roles, though perhaps that might be discouraged or deemed unusual or inappropriate in some communities.) Some people choose to book one dance in advance as a polite way of turning someone down for the current dance: "Thanks, but I already have a partner for this dance. Would you like to dance the next one instead?" Jkbaum (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you have certainly made a good point for bad dance etiquette. Actually correct dance etiquette is that if someone asks you to dance and you refuse, you are not permitted to dance with anyone for that dance, you must sit it out. It isn't ever polite to lie to someone about anything. What a horrible thing to say to someone. You don't think it hurts their feelings and they can see right through you like an empty pickle jar? If you really were going to dance the next one with them why not just dance this one with them? You may "generally try hard to book ahead", but I refuse to book ahead, and if you read the papers on booking ahead you will see that booking "only one dance" is all it takes to force newcomers and the shy, forlorn and forgotten to never dance all night. I don't doubt that you do see a lot of booking ahead but just because so many people do it doesn't make it any less discouraged as a really bad practice. However, there is one exception. Dance cards. Some of the dances have dance cards listing the dances for the evening with a place to put your partners name for that dance. That type of booking is definitely acceptable, but you only see it done very rarely today. 199.125.109.92 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

-Archived 25 May 2024 — eitch 04:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)