Jump to content

Talk:Breakdancing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Creation

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

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

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

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

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

Article title

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

I'm a little confused why this article states "more commonly known as breakdancing", but is called b-boying. Wikipedia tends to encourage use of the most common name does it not?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Read the "Terminology" section of the article, and also the discussion about Breakdance and B-boy being merged into a new article titled B-boying here. Crateescape101 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
After reading the "Terminology" section and the archived discussion (which was only among a few aficionados) I learn that practitioners and in-people call 'b-boying' what is widely known as 'breakdancing', more or less. And as Kung Fu Man points out, WP practice is to use the common term. But this article also says that breakdancing is an 'umbrella term' for various types of dance, of which 'b-boying' is but one. Clearly, breakdancing means something - so where is the article on this well known topic? The current situation, whereby the commonly used term is simply deemed an incorrect version of the more obscure one, is unacceptable. Onanoff (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"Breaking (dance) [or "dancing"]" seems like a more appropriate article title, with breakdancing and b-boy/girl(ing) redirecting. It avoids the obscure "b-boying" while still being accurate. The dance is referred to as "breaking" throughout the article and is not deprecated like "breakdancing". 70.172.215.165 (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Four elements

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

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

move to Breakdance

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

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


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

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

Survey

  • Oppose. The most common term in the reliable sources on the subject is "b-boying". The two most prominent pieces of media on the subject (as far as I'm aware), are the book Foundation: B-boys, B-girls and Hip-Hop Culture in New York, described by Boston Globe as "the best work ever produced on b-boying", and the documentary The Freshest Kids: A History of the B-Boy featuring most of the notable figures. Both use "b-boying", and say that "breakdancing" is an incorrect term that was popular in the '80s when it was considered a fad, but is not used extensively now, having been replaced with the term "b-boying" which is the common term used today, as discussed extensively in the book Foundation over pages 58-67. So per WP:NC - "Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources", "b-boying" is the term that satisfies the criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crateescape101 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support though I'm torn. The rub is that those "immersed in the culture" (as the article says), use breaking and b-boying. This includes the major media sources, because they're written by immersed people. But clearly I think breakdancing is the most widely recognized term. Sadly in this case, WP:NC sides with the latter. - Draeco (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose per Crateescape101's analysis of WP:NC on terms which are inaccurate despite being wide-spread. - Draeco (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a discussion here about this article being moved from breakdancing to b-boying that took place for over a year (April 08 - July 09) and the concensus in the end was to move. Related discussions here and here; same consensus. Also, all the sources given state that the accurate and correct term for the dance is b-boying (or breaking). For these reasons I oppose. // Gbern3 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, Crateescape101's reasoning is just plain opinion supplemented with citations of various publications. It's still an opinion that the article should be renamed. Nowhere was it supported that "B-boying" is common usage. The anonymous poster in the following statement presents the solid numbers that make much more sense. "Breakdancing" is what someone looking up information on the subject would be looking for; "B-boying" may (and just MAY) be what someone who KNOWS about the subject would be looking for. Common usage of "Breakdancing" wins. Heck, "B-boying" is improper English to begin with - it's about as proper as calling the act of operating a vehicle "Drivering". I'd like to think I'm a good statistic as well - I was looking up "breakdancing" (by a link in another article), and I got an article titled "B-boying". This is broken, guys... stop bickering about it with broken logic, and fix the darn page title already. 68.126.159.108 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You've missed the point from the below discussion, where WP:NC says "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be the most common name." You can argue "breakdancing" is more common, but according to WP:NC commonness doesn't even matter if the term is inaccurate. And "breakdancing" is specifically said to be inaccurate in numerous sources. As explained below, it doesn't refer to the type of dance being described in the article. Crateescape101 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, it appears you have only made one contribution to wikipedia so far, your above comment... and there are 2 other anonymous comments in favor of support... sock puppetry? Crateescape101 (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. It is clear that the proposed name is the common name for this. I'll note that just about all of the related articles and categories use breakdance. So this is really the odd one. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:NC says that it doesn't matter if it's the most common name if it is an inaccurate name - "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though it may be more common."
Not to keep going on about this, but this point seems to be overlooked by each new supporter and hasn't been countered so far, and I don't want this point ignored by whoever has the final decision on this, because it is an important point. Crateescape101 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)



Discussion

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

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

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

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

The name was changed not because of the "mistaken notion that Wikipedia should act for change in correcting an established common name," but because the established common name in reliable sources is "b-boying", and it is also the name that the sources suggest is now the most common outside of themselves as well. Crateescape101 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the first of those two arguments was the one that dominated previous discussions, and is contrary to policy. But the second is interesting. Evidence? Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Foundation, pages 58-67 talks at length about how at first, "when the dance became a fad in the '80s it was assigned the term breakdancing," but then it discusses the more recent "popularity of the term b-boying" and how the "dance took on the name b-boying". And see my "oppose" post further above for the evidence of b-boying being popular in the reliable sources, per WP:NC. Crateescape101 (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think there is a problem with accuracy of the term breakdancing, in WP:NC it says -
"Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be the most common name. For example, Tsunami is preferred over the less accurate Tidal wave."
This is mentioned in Foundation - "the term breakdancing is problematic on a practical level... b-boying refers to a specific dance form that developed in New York City '70s, while breakdancing is often used as an umbrella term that also includes popping, locking, boogalooing, and other so called funk-style dances that originated in California" (Foundation, pg. 60).
"B-boying" refers to the specific type of dance referred to in this article, which is not accurately described by the term "breakdancing" per reliable sources. Crateescape101 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Good points. I'm changing to oppose. - Draeco (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This argument seems to collocate two different Wikipedia concepts, reliable sources and common names, which don't normally or logically go together. There is no mention in WP:NC of reliable sources; What we're interested in is common use, which often differs from local or scholarly use, as seems to be the case here. Andrewa (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Following the link WP:NC which you just posted, it says, and I quote - "Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article." Maybe there is something I'm missing, but to me that clearly states that it goes off reliable sources, as it uses those exact words right there in WP:NC, so I find your assertion that there is "no mention" of it, in a link you just posted, as odd.
It also says, quoting again from that link - "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be the most common name." And in the case of this article, "Breakdancing" is stated in the sources to be an incorrect definition by the book Foundation, the documentary The Freshest Kids, and by the Boston Globe also.
Unless I'm missing something with this as well, that quite clearly states that it doesn't matter how common a term is if it is inaccurate per reliable sources. And "breakdancing" is inaccurate per reliable sources. Crateescape101 (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The fallacy in this argument is that WP:NC considers all English speakers, not just those that write reliable sources. Maybe the standard should be to consider only reliable sources in this, as we do in the case of article content, but it's not; The current standard is to consider all speakers. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at there, but it definitely doesn't address the fact that WP:NC clearly states that if a term has been said to be inaccurate by reliable sources (as breakdancing has been), then it doesn't matter if it is the most common name. Crateescape101 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
While I myself don't think the "black" people back then danced in a "breakdance-style" or did any form of bboying at all, it very much has similar movement points if you look at the Youtube videos. A wild dance-style element for instance. And moves that are not too easy for the untrained one, even a bit acrobatic, so here I agree that both dance styles have an element in common. I am not sure if this is enough to warrant a historical connection, but it could be that the earlier dance style influenced the later one. 178.190.203.159 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What?? No one is talking about two different dance styles. They're talking about the same dance style which is being referred to by two different names--breakdance and b-boying. That's really bold for you to say that you don't think black people did any breaking considering they invented the dance. Have you read any books on the subject or did you only rely on YouTube for your history? Is there a reason why black is in quotes?
178.190.203.159, I don't know if you realize this but that comment about how you don't think blacks did any breaking makes you sound kind'of racist... Actually not kind'of, it does make you sound racist. Not sure if that's how you were trying to come off. I just looked up your ip address and the website said you're located in Austria. Do you know any black people? If not, I guess that's why your comment sounds that way even though you may not have realized it. 132.3.25.68 (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gender inequality

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

Of course not. There's no point in stating something as obvious as that. Myominane (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a point. It's not obvious that some moves will be unachievable to most of the females.--213.167.97.194 (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'd say it's pretty obvious that since women are born with less muscle than men, it would pretty much just take common sense to see that it's vastly harder for them to be on the same level as men. No sexism intended. Myominane (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That said, there are a few b-girls who are capable of doing many of the moves b-boys can, so moves such as air-flares are not beyond their reach entirely. However, keep in mind that breaking is first and foremost a dance, and it does not take flashy moves to be a good dancer. Whanhee 07:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, girls can tumble, be stunt-girls too. It makes no sense to point out in every article that girls are less muscular and thus can't do the same level of acrobatics. It would also miss the point - bboying is for everyone, even old people, EVEN if they can not dance. I remember at BOTY 2002, an elderly woman of around 45 years was bboying. Sure she wasn't that great, she did some six-steps and a few easy twists and ended in a freeze. But why should they not? Also, girls can do flares. One handed hand hops. And even airtracks, though not too many. So your point is really a weak one. 178.190.203.159 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian Influence?

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Dissapointing Overview

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

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

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

Don't mean to sound like an asshole, but do it yourself if you're so inclined.
Of course the article is biased toward the US as that's where it started. You are also biased stating that Europe deserves more attention. Personally, I think there should be more attention toward Asia, specifically Korea, but I'm not complaining about it.
Now regarding everything else you suggested. You do realize that bboying is not a well-documented subject, right? We don't even have exact knowledge of how it began. A list of crews, professional or not, would be too unstable. That would probably merit an article of its own. B-boying is also viewed from different perspectives. One's definition of influential is too opinion-based. An overview of the scene is also difficult, as rarely does someone travel frequently around the world to learn each region's bboy scene. I'll use myself as an example. I am an Asian-American b-boy from Louisiana. I have no idea what the scene is like around the rest of the globe and I only have knowledge of the Southern US bboy scene. Don't you also think it would be extremely difficult to find someone immersed in each region's scene to describe it, then put it on Wikipedia?
Myominane (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
To expand on what Myominane said, it's hard to update this page in particular because Wikipdia has core policies of neutrality and verifiability: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors....All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research." This basically means that if you can not prove the validity of information (such as who the most influential breakers are) with a reliable third party source such as a magazine or book then that makes it an opinion. If it's an opinion then it's biased and if it's biased, it'll probably end up being deleted because it goes against the above mentioned core policies. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please stop visiting every article you're interested in and complaining on the talk page about what you don't like as demonstrated by your edits. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the way Wikipedia works but since you don't have that many edits attributed to your IP, I will assume WP:GOODFAITH. All of the articles here are created and edited by the general public who, at one point or another, felt compelled to volunteer their time to developing these article into what they are today. The page on Wikipedia's edit policy states it in this way: "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." If there's something you see lacking in an article that bothers you enough to put exclamation points after your complaints, please WP:BEBOLD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of taking a passive approach and expecting another editor to do it just because you left a comment on the talk page. For your reference, here is a quote from the bold policy that empowers you to edit these pages yourself:
WP:BEBOLD policy: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it." // Gbern3 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Gbern 3, thanks for the suggestions, and all the comments my initial comment has created. It would seem I did take the wrong approach by being passive and as you suggested the WP:BEBOLD policy is something I should follow up. I shall look to take a little time out and write some improvements. The article does need improvement, but I realise that simply talking about it doesnt help either. As for the recency of breakdancing, I agree it is hard to write objectively about the topic but I think it can be done to a degree, there are other much younger topics that seem to be covered better as well. Thanks.

Move to breaking

I propose that we move this article to breaking. The term "b-boying" is one of the original names, but is criticized for only encompassing male breakers. "Breaking" is the accepted gender neutral term that is at least as correct and popular. Of course, we can still refer to the practitioners as "b-boys" and "b-girls", but the name of the article should be gender neutral, as it covers both b-boying and b-girling. - Wintran (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pros and cons of each term:
Breakdancing
Pros: Undoubtedly the most widely known name.
Cons: Heavily criticized by practitioners for not being historically correct. Sometimes used as an umbrella term encompassing popping and locking as well.
B-boying
Pros: Historically correct and used by many practitioners.
Cons: Not gender neutral as it is derived from the name of male practitioners, "b-boys". Possibly not as well-known to the general public.
Breaking
Pros: Both historically correct, used by practitioners, well-known and gender neutral.
Cons: ?
To me, "breaking" seems like the least controversial of the three and the best choice for the Wikipedia article. Of course, the other names should also be mentioned in the article. - Wintran (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


I just read the article trying to find information about how it evolved. and I just wanted to say, once the article is decided, remember to make the change throughout the entire article and not just the title, It is very confusing reading through the article and having it refer to breakdancing as b-boying, Breaking, *And* breakdancing all at the same time appearing to argue that bboying and breaking is more accurate. I tend to agree with wintran though, B-boying makes one wonder "b-boy? what does B standfor?" While Breaking -> Breakdancing Makes a layman think, Breakdancing -> breaking , Makes sense, and just point out in the article Breaking, also known as etc...etc... etc... (as it is already done) but Again,keep it consistent throughout, don't keep switching between breaking bboying and breakdancing I would do it myself, but there's enough controversy over the article title anyway, and It's unlikely I'd visit this page again once it's been decided.BlueArcher (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

B-boying in Korea

Hey, so this is mainly addressed to Gbern. I didn't post this onto his talk page though because I feel that in the slim chance that someone reads this, they'll get some advice and information out of this. There is a forum posting by B-boy Darkness of Gambler Crew where he describes the history of b-boying in Korea and how it's evolved. Now I know how Wikipedia feels about using forum postings as refs, so I wanted to run this by anybody who takes the time to read this (mainly Gbern). Cheers.

Oh, and here's the forum post.

http://www.bboy.org/forums/word-up/86772-korean-bboying-scene.html

Myominane (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good read. I think this sentence in the post sums up perfectly why Korean b-boys are so good: "What made the unique style of the Korean Bboys back then was the mixture of Bboys who visited Korea (specially dancers from the states), the influence of the internet and the military service (Bboys had to improve very fast, to become strong before the military called them)." Yes, forums should be avoided when it come to references but I found other sources that are acceptable to Wikipedia. If you skim through the articles below you will see that some of what B-boy Darkness said in the forum is echoed in these articles. These articles mention the play "Ballerina who loves b-boy", the US military bringing US culture to Korea, Korea winning BOTY, radiotron, the effect looming mandatory military service has on Korea b-boys, etc. The first article I already knew about because I used it as a source for the Hip-hop dance article. It is archived here. This one is probably the best resource since it is the longest of the three but they all could be used as sources. Check them out:
//Gbern3 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That was very informative, Gbern. Thank you for the links. Let's both try to incorporate them into the article eventually.
Myominane (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We get it

The point that it is 'properly' not called breakdancing is made 16 times in the opening and first section alone. I have no opinion on the terminology matter, but dear lord why repeat it endlessly?Thedoorhinge (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that you're annoyed but for layman readers, it's absolutely necessary to repeat it to them endlessly. Conversations about whether this article should be titled breakdance vs. b-boying have been discussed here, here, here, and above on this talk page here. At the end of every discussion it was decided that "b-boying" should be the title. If it wasn't explained 16 times in the opening and first section alone then there would be a fifth discussion by someone else advocating for the title to be changed to "breakdance". So in order to avoid another discussion, to educate layman readers, and to avoid any confusion as to why the dance is called b-boying, the statement is made 16 times. It had to be done, even it means annoying readers such as yourself who don't care either way. At least now you're informed. my ip --> 132.3.25.68 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Russian Dances

Is there any link/connection to Russian dances? I mean: is there a chance to had been originated from those?

Can or may be out there a proof/research of the link?

Thanks --TudorTulok (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits by 71.187.209.186

I've removed this paragraph, which was added by 71.187.209.186 to the "Origins" section.

Elements of breaking may be seen in other antecedent cultures prior to the 1980s,[1] but it was not until the 1980s that breaking developed as a street dance style. Street corner DJs would take the rhythmic breakdown sections (or "breaks") of dance records and loop them one after the other. This provided a rhythmic base for improvising and mixing and it allowed dancers to display their skills during the break. In a turn-based showcase of dance routines the winning side was determined by the dancer(s) who could outperform the other by displaying a set of more complicated and innovative moves while maintaining to hit specific beats of the break.

The first sentence is obviously unencyclopedic, and the remainder is unreferenced. I know little about the subject, so I can't comment on the validity of the paragraph. I've merely moved it here (rather than just deleting it) so it can be discussed by those who know more than I. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename chapter title "Footwork styles" to "Downrock styles"

Although the cited video [2] is called "Footwork Styles" the generic name is downrock. The name footwork is often used as a synonym for downrock but here we talk about different styles of downrock and to be totally correct one has to consider footwork a specific set of downrock moves which build a "style". The downrock style "footwork" is mostly identical to the described "Traditional New York Style", since in the beginning there was almost no leg threads or bretzel-like glides. Footwork style uses foot walking steps - therefore "footwork" - like 6-step, 3-step, CCs, scrambles/12-step, front shuffle/kickouts etc. and no threads, glides, jumps etc.. If I find further source, I will add it here. IP -> 131.188.30.156 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ A Street Arab (MPG) (MPG). Thomas A. Edison Inc. 1898-04-21. Retrieved 2009-11-10.
  2. ^ Won, Profo., FLOOR GANGZ, "Footwork Styles",
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breakdancing/Archive_1&oldid=1073872855"