Talk:Vaganova method/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV issues

I'm a proponent/product of the Vaganova school and even I think this is biased!.... Depends if it was based on Vaganova, because the Vaganova school in the last 14 years has not been teaching her method anymore, they have been teaching according to the Moscow syllabus.

"considered by many to be an combination of the best of the French and Italian schools" -- it does combine the schools but who says what exactly is the "best" of each?...If you study teaching method you come to realize why thousands of teacher have made this statement over the years.

"the only method that predicts a safe and accurate outcome" -- in a word, doubtful....how many more highly skilled and trained artists coming out of one country do you need for your proof? After over 30 years of use, not one injury, I am not doubtful at all.

"There is no other method like it." -- actually, there are many forms of classical ballet training, and they are not that dissimilar. ........... There is a difference between "forms of training" and "teaching method and there is no comparision between a form and a method.

"the most difficult movements known to man - that of the classical pas de deux" -- yes, it's difficult, but so is gymnastics and ice skating and tightrope walking and so on and so forth. Rephrase...the most difficult movements in dance - is the classical pas de deux. Vaganova analyized the jumping aspect of these movements, thus giving the foundation to the science of teaching these movements, free of injury. The method that she founded is scientifically based and physiologically sound.

"To say that the method is considered excellent is an understatement" -- definitely an opinion... No, not an opinion a statement of fact.

"in today's world, few really understand what it is and how to use it" -- factual dispute here, perhaps more evidence needed ... If given a chance to study, and see the results of this scientfic way of teaching, that is your evidence. But, even if one is not afforded an opportunity to study from a reputatable teacher, the results of the teaching method speak for themselves.

Over 70% of teachers in America claim to teach some form of Vaganova, so it is the most popular way of teaching in America, based on the first survey of its kind, done by reputable Dance USA, organization out of Washington, DC. in the 1990's. Fact.

"It is believed that if a school has even one injury in the lesson, then the method is not really understood or used properly." -- this is apocryphal "This is apocryphal"...very uninformed statement. After over 30 years of proper use of the method, there was not one injury, and this is the truth.

It needs some work, for sure. Added {{cleanup}} tag. — Editor at Large^(speak) 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is too short and in many places just a bit silly. Please, someone who is more of an expert than I am, could you fix this? 75.48.41.211 (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hello, everyone -- Emmegan here. I've just made a big cleanup of the article and tried to format it as a little more than just a block of POV text. I also added external links. If anyone with more experience in the history of the Vaganova method would like to give me feedback on my talk page, I'd more than appreciate it! Thanks! Emmegan 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "Vaganova method"

The lead sentence says

The Vaganova method is a ballet technique and training system devised by ...

Since a ballet technique is obviously not the same thing as a training system, it follows that "Vaganova method" has two different meanings. The way it reads now is like saying "an apple is a fruit and computer". Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like this:

Vaganova method is the name of both a ballet technique and a related training system, which were devised by ...

Lambtron (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer to think of it as being like saying... "an apple is a fruit containing the seeds to grow a new fruit tree". We've been over this issue a hundred times now and your obsession with semantics is more than a little tiresome. When ballet experts do not make clear distinctions between technique/style/methodology, it makes no sense for you to insist on doing so. As I and others have said many times before, what might be called technique in one school, might be called style in another, and method in another, the distinctions are so subtle that they are largely irrelevant. I will remind you that Wikipedia is intended to provide a BROAD overview of topics, not finicky details. Technique, style, method... you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to, the wording of this article, and others relating to ballet methods and techniques are perfectly adequate as they are. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are so frustrated by this; that's not my intention. It's true that ballet terminology uses the words "technique", "style" and "methodology" interchangeably, and Wikipedia articles do sometimes limit coverage of topics (though not by design or intent), but those observations are not relevant in any way to this discussion. Perhaps you are frustrated because you are misunderstanding--and therefore unable to address--my concern, which is based on a preference for proper English language and this fact:

Ballet Technique ≠ Training System

A dancer uses ballet technique when dancing, whereas a teacher employs a training system to teach dancers. Those are two different topics. One does not need to be a "ballet expert" to understand these plainspoken statements, and I believe that any true ballet expert would agree with them and agree that they are two distinct topics.

I hope my concern is clear to you now: the wording of the lead sentence is not adequate because it is not proper English. I believe my proposed rewording corrects the language deficiencies while retaining the factual correctness of the sentence. Please consider this from the perspective of a language expert, not a dance expert. Wikipedia does encourage proper English in articles, right? If you would like to propose your own corrected version of the sentence, I will gladly consider it. If you would rather not do that, or you feel that my proposal is satisfactory, I will correct the sentence as proposed. Lambtron (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence is perfectly proper English whether one agrees with it or not. — Robert Greer (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion would carry more weight if you explained your reasoning; that's quite a leap of logic to make without a rational explanation, especially in light of the thoughtful concerns expressed above. Crazy-dancing says that Vaganova is "both a technique and a training method", and I agree, so why do you object to using that language in the article? Lambtron (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with your, sir (I have no problem with the estimable Crazy-Dancing.)

The lead sentence might be improved [emphasis added to previous post] but you assert — without a rational explanation — your words — that it "is not proper English."

Please explain what is improper about it. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have no problem with Crazy-dancing's wording, why not just use it? Lambtron (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You state both above and below that the lead sentence is improper English, without having "explained your reasoning" and "without a rational explanation" — your words — and then credit yourself with "thoughtful concerns"! I would like to know what is wrong with the use of the English language in the lead. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed in detail at the language reference desk, but I'll be happy to explain it again here. The problem is in this sentence fragment: "The Vaganova method is a ballet technique and training system". Because there is no article "a" before "training system", the article "a" appearing before "ballet technique" modifies both "ballet technique" and "training system" as though they are a single item. That grammatical error produces an impossible conflation of two homophones: "Vaganova method" (dance technique) and "Vaganova method" (training method). Although the missing article "a" is the only technical error in the sentence, I would definitely agree that Crazy-dancing's addition of "both" really helps to clarify the sentence meaning. Lambtron (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this reference; Crazy-dancing's addition of the word "both" is a significant improvement.

The language reference desk to the contrary, "The Vaganova method is a ballet technique and training system" is correct English.

It arises from: The Vaganova method is a ballet technique. The Vaganova method is a ballet training system.

Which conflate into: The Vaganova method is a ballet technique and the Vaganova method is a ballet training system.

Then: The Vaganova method is a ballet technique and a ballet training system.

And finally: The Vaganova method is a ballet technique and training system.

"Ballet technique" and "training system" are never equated or compared; "technique" and "training system" are. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the logical flow or connectivity of your bullet points, but it's heartening that we agree that the sentence would be significantly improved by the addition of "both". Shall I make the edit or would you prefer to do the honours?

I'm also in favor of adding an article "a" before "training system". I've concisely explained why that article is required, and the inestimable Crazy-dancing has used that precise wording, yet you seem opposed to it. I'm struggling to understand that. Lambtron (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Main article: Phrase structure rules

See also: Transformational grammar, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, and Syntactic Structures

— Robert Greer (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Those links make for interesting reading, but I don't see how they relate to your bullet points. It's as if you are saying "Vaganova method" has only one meaning—a training system—yet I know that the term is also commonly used to mean a dance style. Can you explain? Lambtron (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(The Vaganova method is a ballet technique.) (The Vaganova method is a ballet training system.)

(The Vaganova method is a ballet technique) and (the Vaganova method is a ballet training system).

The Vaganova method is (a ballet technique) and (a ballet training system).

The Vaganova method is a (ballet technique) and (training system).

"The Vaganova method is a ballet technique and training system" is correct English and does not equate "Ballet Technique" and "Training System"; if you need further explication you can get a used copy of Aspects of the Theory of Syntax on Amazon for less than $9 or new for less than $19, shipping and handling included. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to delve into the theory of syntax -- this is covered in English 101. Perhaps an analogy will make this clear:

A leaf is a book page. A leaf is a biological appendage.

A leaf is a book page and a leaf is a biological appendage.

A leaf is a book page and a biological appendage.

A leaf is a book page and biological appendage.

In introductory English classes it is taught that the last sentence is wrong because the single article "a" modifies "book page" and "biological appendage" together, thus implying "book page" and "biological appendage" are describing a single leaf. But, as we know, a particular leaf can't be both a book page and a biological appendage. The rules of grammar require a second article "a" to show we are talking about two different instances, or meanings, of "leaf".

In basic English it's also taught that the economical use of words can enhance clarity, but overzealous paring of words does just the opposite. Excessive word economy is evident in the third and fourth sentences; both of those sentences would receive red marks from an English teacher for that very reason. I'm certain, though, that an English teacher would be minimally satisfied with something like this: "A leaf is the name of both a book page and a biological appendage." Or "A 'leaf' is a book page. 'Leaf' may also refer to a biological appendage."

If you still disagree with me, please don't reply with a book reading list. Just explain, using prose, why you think my logic is flawed.

Honestly, I don't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers here; I see an obvious problem with the definition of "Vaganova method" and I'm just trying to fix it. Lambtron (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're not prepared to do your homework there is no point in discussing English beyond the "English 101" level. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point! Aside from us, the editors here seem unable or unwilling to discuss this at the English 101 level, let alone beyond that. You have made a good effort to rise to the English 101 level, but you throw in the towel whenever it becomes difficult or it's apparent that I'm correct. Case in point: You just showed how to reduce two sentences to one, then I showed why that reduction is flawed, then you aborted the logical progression of the conversation and claimed, without explanation, that I'm mistaken and I must read a book to find out why. That's a total cop out!

Deal with me honestly, please. Either (1) agree with me, or (2) give a logical reason for disagreeing, or (3) admit that you've closed your mind to this. Don't claim that you know I'm wrong and proof of that can be found at some undisclosed location in a book; if you honestly believe that, tell me which paragraph to read or explain it in your own words. Lambtron (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is apparently a great need to delve into the theory of syntax as this is not covered in English 101.

I will make one last attempt to show you the error of your ways: "A leaf is a book page" arises from "A leaf is a page of a book."

"A leaf is a biological appendage" does not arise from "A leaf is an appendage of a biological" or any other form of the root-word biology.

There is deeper structure involved, and the deeper one delves the more foolish your analogy; please do your homework before you waste any more of our time. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you believe the lead sentence is discussing two different subjects. That reconciles with the two sentences you gave above: "The Vaganova method is a ballet technique" and "The Vaganova method is a ballet training system." Those sentences state, in crystal clear language, the two meanings of "The Vaganova method". That begs the question: If two simple sentences do a good job of explaining two different things, why merge them into a single sentence? If it really is necessary, or desirable, to merge them, it's important not to lose the distinction between the two subjects. Would something like this be acceptable: "Vaganova method is the name of both a ballet technique and the ballet training system used to teach that technique."? Lambtron (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be acceptable, but entirely unnecessary, because your proposed wording is less concise despite communicating exactly the same thing. The current wording is perfectly acceptable, and more or less everyone agrees on that except you. I think you need to turn this question back on yourself, because splitting this one short, concise sentence into two longer ones will NOT make this article any more understandable for someone who does not have at least a basic knowledge of ballet. And for all your comments about me, I notice that, looking back through your recent edits on Wikipedia, it is YOU who have a penchant for reverting people's edits, and it is YOU who seems to do very little else other than picking fault with the contributions of others. So whilst you sit hovering over this talk page and not really doing anything else useful, I will get on with the job at hand... actually improving the article in terms of communicating the topic, without obsessing over trivial matters, such as the wording of one sentence.Crazy-dancing (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The current and proposed sentences don't even come close to expressing the same idea! The current sentence indicates "Vaganova method" is a mystical combination of two completely different things. The sentence fails to explain an essential fact: "Vaganova method" is an ambiguous name that is common to two different things. Also, since the sentence is attempting to combine two different subjects, good writing style mandates an explanation of how the two subjects are related, but the current sentence omits that explanation. I agree with your goal of keeping things brief, but conciseness requires more than that; it requires clarity and the inclusion of all important information.

The proposed sentence says outright that Vaganova method has two meanings and it explicitly defines those meanings and how they are related. How could one be more concise? All of the important information is present and concisely stated, and it satisfies your desire to discuss two different subjects in one sentence. AFAIK, the only way to shorten the proposed sentence further (without losing essential information) is to split the article into Vaganova method (ballet technique) and Vaganova method (ballet training system). Lambtron (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have commented at length, the term Vaganova method does not have two meanings, it is ONE topic, with two aspects, not a difficult concept to understand. There is nothing ambiguous or difficult to understand about that, hence the majority of people looking at this article do not see a problem with it. Again... I will point out that only YOU seem to have a particular issue with the wording of this one sentence, surely by now it would have clicked in your head that it is futile to pursue this further. You went running to the language desk in the hope of garnering support for your POV, and despite the consensus being to the contrary, you are intent to continue this petty and childish campaign. Grow up, grow a pair, accept you are wrong, accept that the majority opinion rules and just QUIT now. Crazy-dancing (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! Are you saying that you've changed you mind and no longer believe it's correct to say "Vaganova method is a ballet technique."? I can't imagine why you would do that, because "Vaganova method" is frequently used in that exact context--which is completely independent of any teaching methods. In that context, "Vaganova method" is not an "aspect" of some higher, ethereal topic; it is a distinct topic that is quite capable, and deserving, of standing on its own. I thought we agreed that sentence is correct, but we're running backwards if you've changed your mind. Lambtron (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You know what, you're either a wind up merchant, or just plain stupid, so I'm not even going to honour this nonsensical drivel with a response. As I said, it's time to grow up and quit this childish game of yours now. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

YAAAAAAAAAWN... I'm bored of this, and I'm sure you are too User:Robertgreer. I actually can't even muster the motivation to respond to this loony. I would have thought 4 or 5 members of the language desk disagreeing with him would have been enough, but obviously it does take a sledgehammer to crack a nut after all, shame I don't do violence. Crazy-dancing (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether your problem is lack of motivation or a tendency to solve problems with denial and intimidation, I can't say. I can say that I've made a reasonable proposal and explained the reasoning behind it. I've been asked for, and I've provided, an explanation of the grammatical and structural problems in the lead sentence of this article. I can provide further proof of those problems if asked. I expect those who asked for that proof to follow up with intelligent, relevant dialog; I'm still waiting for that to happen but I'm confident it will happen eventually. As for your problem, I can't solve it for you but I can suggest practical solutions. If you don't understand something I've said, ask for clarification. If you think my proof is flawed, explain your reasoning (using logical arguments and prose, please). If this conversation bores you, don't read it. Lambtron (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Without meaning any disrespect Lambtron (okay perhaps a little)... do you have you a problem understanding the difference between a real issue, and something you have created in your own head? NOBODY except you has an issue with the wording of the article, and nobody except you cares about whether to add an extra "a" or an extra "both", because it's a non-issue and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Everyone (except you) agrees that the use of English in the article is perfectly correct and that is why nobody is rushing to change it, because nobody is going to loose sleep over something that isn't really broken? If you are so desperate to change it, then change it, and whilst you're at it, grow up and stop running around making a song and dance out of things that really aren't important. Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem like a smart fellow, Crazy-dancing, so I'm surprised you haven't realized what's happening here: this lengthly conversation is a direct result of your unusual method of collaboration. My edits here and in other ballet articles have frequently been reverted by you, or changed by you in ways I disagree with, without adequate explanation. That has made it necessary for me to gain your consensus before making even the most trivial of edits, in the hope that you might allow the changes to persist. I've learned from experience that if I don't do that, I'm wasting my time on edits that will almost surely be stepped on. I'm not happy about this process either but, unpleasant as it is, you have imposed it on us and left no practical alternatives.

I expect no more from you than any other WP editor: be civil, respect my ideas even if you don't agree with them, and rely on reasoned dialog to reach consensus. You have come up short on all counts. Now, after numerous unsuccessful efforts to draw you into intelligent dialog, you abruptly abandon the conversation and flippantly suggest that I make my proposed edits -- the same ones you have vehemently opposed throughout this long conversation. Does that mean you now approve of those edits and will permit them to stand?

I have interacted with hundreds of Wikipedia editors, but I can count on one finger the cases where common sense and thoughtful dialog failed to resolve a difference of opinion. The great tragedy here is not the time and energy we have wasted, but that you have chosen to spend your time "collaborating" this way instead of spreading your knowledge of ballet. Lambtron (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And I will remind you, that the only reason I reverted many of your edits, was because of your sweeping changes to various ballet articles, suggesting that they were not sufficiently related to technique to be included in that category... articles which, to use your own words, you described as a "festering mess". Your current issue is purely about trivial aspects of wording that will do little to improve the quality of the article in terms of communicating the topic, and yet despite all comments to the contrary on the language page, you still insist that the use of English is incorrect, so it provides me with some amusement to see you 'getting consensus' and 'collaborating' on semantics that really are not all that important. --Crazy-dancing (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You unilaterally changed the definition of this topic to a wording that is inconsistent with logic, yet you blame me for that. Go figure. Lambtron (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another nonsense comment... go figure! 78.148.76.181 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another unexplained opinion. Go figure! Lambtron (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will get bored eventually and you WILL get the last word :) 78.148.76.181 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't quit before explaining your opinion! I'm always interested in the thoughts of a fellow Brit ;) Lambtron (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If only I knew what opinion you were referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.76.181 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; we could then have a meaningful conversation. Lambtron (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cross-posted from the Ballet talk page, Dance terminology section

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)

Interesting, but not relevant to this conversation. The issue here is improper English language. Lambtron (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1