Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Talk:Dance and health

Contents

Bent kneesEdit

Under good practice I'm sure it should say something about having bent knees to reduce the force of impact on the knees and ankles for things like folk dance. I can't find references about it though as opposed to plie for ballet which is to counter rather extreme forces from jumps, in fact is there something good like this about plie even? Also the knees should be lined up with the feet and care taken to avoid twisting the knees or ankles. Women are more prone to these type injuries despite being lighter but targeted exercises can help greatly. Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Found a bit about what I was thinking about here ACL Injuries in Women and Training women to prevent knee injury. Nothing about plie but perhaps better. Dmcq (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a perfect idea! Keep it up! Christinafoley95 (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Treatment after injuryEdit

Something about treatment would probably also be a good idea. Not sure how much and what documentation needed. Probably at least RICE should be in - rest ice, compression, elevation though I think some gentle use should normally be encouraged. Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on this! This is a great topic! Christinafoley95 (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

MergerEdit

I believe that this page and "Health risks of professional dance" are good candidates for merging. They are not excessively long, and the subjects largely overlap. And especially since I can already see some WP:POVFORKish tendencies in both. Keφr 08:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think they are rather different as one is mainly for amateur and the other for professional dancers. What are the forkish tendencies you see? 86.9.212.44 (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I would be inclined to keep them separate. There is some overlap, but I think the intended audience for each article is different. For example, the stress section in health risks of professional dance wouldn't really apply to this page. Ashleyleia (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I think both of these topics would be great to merge! Christinafoley95 (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Queries on changesEdit

1. I don't see how an image of a belly dancer illustrates the topic. The picture of the folk dancers showed older people who dance and thus illustrated the idea of dancing and fitness. For the belly dancing there is no obvious link, it is just somebody who is fit doing dancing.

2. The section on mental health is overlinked. There is no need to put in links to common concepts like brain. Also it is written as an ad saying 'your brain'. Wikipedia should be written with a neutral point of view summarizing the information out there, not to sell things.

3. The physical health section has no citation for the list. It shuld be removed if there is none.

4. We don't need an explanation of what dance is in the lead. There is an article on what dance is and it is a pretty common idea anyway. The article should be devoted to dance and health as linked in citations.

5. Why was the study with crosswords compared to dancing removed? It was about dance and health and had citations.

6. Why was the section on dance and courtship removed? It was about dance and health and had citations.

I had nothing to do with 5 and 6. Thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall an explanation of changes would be useful instead of rewriting articles into private essays. Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Also I see you did some unnecessary edits to this talk page. Please don't edit other peoples comments unless necessary. Alsoon WIkipedia titles are not normally capitalised. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No response so implemented most of the reversion/changes. I left out the crosswords one as the links seem to have disappeared and it wasn't tht important. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I just saw these changes that you had made to this article today. I just wanted to say that I understand some of your viewpoints but I honestly don't feel like it was necessary to change some of what I had worked really hard and put the time and effort into making this article much better. This article is part of my Wikipedia project for English class so I don't really like how you changed majority of what I had changed into here. For instance, I felt like the beginning was very necessary except for the part where I gave a definition of dance. Ok, that part I understand. But, for the picture, I don't understand why you changed my picture back to the original form because I thought that picture was necessary because it shows a young, fit dancer but maybe I suggest I could add in more pictures that tie into dance and health and maybe this time you could leave the belly dancer? That would be greatly appreciated! But, that wasn't the main thing I was most upset about, I was upset that you changed the benefits of dance topic. You left the mental health which is good, but you needed to keep the physical health as well because that's very important, at least I believe it's important, but next time when I add it, I could make it into a paragraph form and then cite my source on that one. But, I do wanna say that great job on breaking up what I had mentioned on the benefits of dance topic into smaller sections, that looks a lot better! So if you could please stop changing my edits, that would be greatly appreciated and I will try to compromise with you. Christinafoley95 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
To show something you have to show a case in which the point might be falsified, not just show accidental associations. Young people tend to be fit anyway, showing a young fit dancer does not show a connection between dance and health. What that can be seen as is that there is not a connection between dance and health or that only young people can dance and there is no overall health benefit and the topic is a non-topic or that dancing is bad for one so only the young are able to do it. Wikipedia is not an advertisement, it is for conveying information. No the belly dancer has to go as it is irrelevant and is just an advertisement for the person.
Ok, I understand that, but that's why I added in other photos of dancers that are young and old so it's a variety of different types. Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable in that someone has bothered to go out and write about it in a reliable source, see WP:V, and we are summarizing what is said like that rather than making up things ourselves, see WP:OR. I waited to see if you would provide some citation or response generally and you didn't.
No, I did not make up things, I cited all my sources and I did reply to you, just later on because I didn't see it at first. Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
And no we won't let you just own the topic, see WP:OWN so don't ask us not to change what you have said however much you feel like you would want to always keep what you said in. See WP:5P pillar 3 on this and for a general introduction to Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I did not ever say the article was "mine" in the first place so I don't know where you are getting that information and assumption from? Well, I just thought that my information and facts were very reliable and didn't see why people had to change it, but I'll keep that in mind for next time. Thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
re: "I don't know where you are getting that"'. When someone cites you a wikipedia guideline, please be diligent and peruse it. In this case you were told "see WP:OWN". Hint: "see" is a shortcut "please read and understand" (Just like "I am disinclined to acquiesce your request" means "No", only vice versa). In particular, I strongly suspect WP:OWN#Examples of ownership behaviour is where Dmcq was "getting that". - üser:Altenmann >t 05:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop changing editsEdit

Ok so I can't stress this enough, if you guys want to add some comments or facts to this article, then be my guest, but don't just delete a bunch of information without talking to the person that took the time and effort to create that information first. It's rude and disrespectful. Also, don't just delete information and then add a bunch of unrelated topics to the article that doesn't even make any sense. Christinafoley95 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not your guests. We like you are editors on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I never said that you're my "guests" so again, I don't know where you are making these assumptions from? It was just a statement not literally meaning that you guys are my "guests" lol. I know you guys are editors on here too and your input matters as well, I was just adding information like everyone else to the article is all. Thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes you did. You can lol with your buddies whom you know and who understand when you are joking. So far your behavior, if looked from aside, is that of frustrated page owner. So back off with your "rude and disrespectful". Respect is to be earned. Rants like "doesn't even make any sense" will not help you in that. You are new to wikipedia, so please be humble and listen what other people telling you; ask questions, if something does not makes sense to you. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not being rude and disrespectful, frankly you're being rude and disrespectful with some of your comments. Like I was only stating my opinion and then you rant at me, calm down and explain things rather than coming off as mean to someone who's trying to help and yes at the time when I wrote that I was frustrated, but maybe I would be less frustrated if you just calmly explain to me rather than "come at me" about certain topics and it also seems like you're trying to point things out and trying to be right rather than getting to the bottom of things and sorting things out, just trying to clear things up? I do listen to what others have to say but thank you, I'll keep that into consideration! Christinafoley95 (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

Unsourced material once removed shouldn't be replaced without sources meeting [WP:VERIFY]] and WP:RS

Sources such as Google searches and non-medical columns (the USA Today one isn't even signed) shouldn't be used for medical claims.

Sources need to discuss both dance and health.

Well, I thought that I did cite all my sources correctly but now I understand that I can't add in definitions and can't use Google for any of my citations. So I'm sorry about that. But, I didn't feel like I was not following any of the rules? Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you know all rules? Why you think you cannot add definitions? - üser:Altenmann >t 05:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do, and because Wikipedia wants you to mainly stay on the page and not venture off to some unknown cite or source that's relating to a definition. Christinafoley95 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In most cases we probably should say "may" rather than assert as fact that dance has certain benefits.

"Most forms of dance may be considered an aerobic exercise and as such reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, help weight control, stress reduction, and bring about other benefits commonly associated with physical fitness. In addition, studies have demonstrated a considerable correlation between dancing and psychological well-being." is unsourced. If it had reliable sources it might be in the lead unsourced, but not in the body of the article. But I'm not at all sure about the first sentence. This probably isn't a reliable source but it clearly contradicts the claim. Other reliable sources I can find clearly differentiate between ordinary dance and aerobic dance. And we'd need several citations from academic studies for the second sentence. Doug Weller (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental health and other benefitsEdit

"The mental health of your brain can vary much lead right up to benefiting your dancing by impacting the style or the way you move. It impacts your brain by a lot of different reasons." Sorry, but this doesn't make a lot of sense nor is it good English. The second sentence is a quote which in part says "dance can result in high adherence and a positive experience for the participants". User:Christinafoley95 as you added it could you explain what "high adherence" means? And a positive experience is good, but that doesn't mean it improved mental health.

Ok, I understand where you are coming from. Thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"Another gain of dancing is for those who have high cholesterol, plus drugs and adequate food, dancing can draw." They can draw? That and the next sentence (sourced to USA Today) were added March 2014 and should be removed as it makes little sense and is badly sourced.

" If dance was introduced to the regular school curriculum in some form, it could help deal with and/or prevent children from suffering mental issues and other due to different circumstances." This is unsourced and far, far too positive. Most schools in the UK for instance have dance in some form at times. And " mental issues and other due to different circumstances" makes no sense. That section was added by an IP in March. Doug Weller (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

PicturesEdit

Pictures need to be relevant to what they are besides and to the topic. Something that was very relevant to RICE without showing a dancer might be okay in the section on treating injury, but some generic footballer injury being treated is not I think of sufficient relevance to the topic. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I thought the pictures were fine but I'll just leave them alone. By the way, it wasn't a football injury? All the pictures that I've included were about dance and some had to do with and relate to the section titles. Thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

LeadEdit

What should be in the lead paragraph of an article is described in WP:LEAD. Basically it should say what the topic is, say why it is notable, and summarize the contents of the article. This article would be improved by the addition of a couple of paragraphs summarizing the contents but it doesn't need to describe what dance or health is except at most by a link to the articles on those. Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand that I shouldn't have added in definitions for the beginning. So I will leave that topic alone. But, at least I did cite my sources for that topic. Thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
No you did not understand. Some definitions are absolutely necessary. Please read WP:LEAD. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do understand as I mentioned above but I did look it up and you're right, so again I'm sorry, just trying to help and improve the article. Christinafoley95 (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Treatment + courtshipEdit

I see that treatment with RICE has been removed with a comment by Altenmann (talk · contribs) saying "Treatment after injury: wp is not "howto" guide, and advice is not dance-specific anyway". I don't remember anything in Wikipedia saying that we should only say things which were specific to something. The citations were for dance injuries and that seems pretty close to the topic of the article to me. Non specific or WP:OR would be if someone stuck in a citation about RICE and it didn't mention dance, however these have dance in the heading and are specifically about dance. The description was as far as I can see informative rather than howto. A howto would say how to apply RICE or another treatment not just refer to the article.

As to courtship the topic is 'dance and health' and the section is about how dance is an indicator of health in courtship, and that's what the citations are all about. Therefore the comment 'Dance and courtship: nothing to do with health' is simply wrong. Perhaps a more reasoned reason could be given as that makes two people who have removed the section in the last few months and I'd like to know what is going though people's minds. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps on the courtship business it might be better to rename the section 'Dance as an indicator of fitness' instead? The main reason a faithful indicator of that is needed is for people hooking up but it might stop editors just removing the section without reading it. Dmcq (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why this topic has been deleted and keeps getting deleted but it was not me. Thanks! Christinafoley95 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Re "the section is about how dance is an indicator of health in courtship" - No, it is not. It is indicator of fitness. Health and fitness come together, but not the same. I am not against expanding the article scope, but then it (the scope) must be clearly stated in the lede. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC) -- Not to say that the section was chaos, up to the phrase "A study shows that people who score high on intelligence tests are also good at keeping time" - üser:Altenmann >t 05:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC) -- P.S. not to say it is quite amusing application of the study. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: ":I don't remember anything in Wikipedia saying that we should only say things which were specific to something." - WP:SYNTH. But in this case I indeed was wrong.I was misled by hatnote {main|Sports injury} Restored. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not certain which version of fitness you mean. Some definitions count fitness as something that is mainly got by exercise but in this case biological fitness seems to be more important if anything. Anyway overall it is hard to be clear where one begins and the other ends. Yes I think it should be in this article unless there is a good reason otherwise, we'd probably have to refer to it from here wherever it was and I can't in fact see a decent other article to put it in, for instance Sexual selection in humans does not cover the topic of general fitness as opposed to inherited characteristics and Fitness (biology) is far to high level about genes, and Courtship and Dating seem to be a step beyond initial selection choice. Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • re "which fitness". Just the same as you, I may ask, which biological fitness you have in mind. In wikipedia we have Physical fitness (good health) and Fitness (biology) (the ability to propagate genes) (and, of course, other ones in Fitness (disambiguation) :-). Of course, AFAIK courtship selection prefers physically fit and this physical fitness can be seen in dance. But we need sources which say all it together 'in the same source, otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH whether it is true or not. The Jamaica source cited in deleted piece is about a very curious study: effect of symmetry in dance on sexual selection. How symmetry is related to health, beats me. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That said, bearing in mind that "fitness" can somehow be squeezed int this article, I reviewed the deleted "courting" section, and frankly, I cannot see a single sentence worth restoring, all for different reasons - a strong indication of WP:COATRACK. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been here a while but I see Altenman has gone and removed the sections again. I really do not understand from the above why they do not see the direct and straightforward relevance of these sections to the topic of the article. The sources are quite specific in their relation to both dance and health and the sections are not WP:SYNTH in any way. I think there must be some misunderstanding about what health or dance are. I will therefore restore the sections and inform Altenmann. If they keep on deleteing and no thind party comes along to resolve the issue I will raise an RfC. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Looking again I see a treatment section was put in again so I've just put in a pointer in that to sports injuries for more on the subject, though it isn't exactly the same subject because that doesn't specifically deal with dance like the citations here do. I put the courtship bit under scientific studies. I'll rename the courtship to dance as an indicator of health. Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm after a bit more I've removed nearly everything again. Oh well. I've put a cite to a recent Oxford handboook on the topic in the further reading. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sourcesEdit

please read and understand the guidelines in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). - üser:Altenmann >t 04:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read and understood the guidelines, I'm just trying to contribute and make the article better just like all of you and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, so I'm sorry for the misconfusion. Just trying to give my input to the article because I'm a dancer and have expertise in the field of dance and this is for my English project so sorry if you found my comments to be disrespectful when all I was trying to do is help. Christinafoley95 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Professional and recreationalEdit

The article must be structured along the major watershed:

  • Professional dance.
  • Dance as recreation (including health benefits).

And the lede must be fixed accordingly. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There used to a separate article on the professional side. I was a bit worried about it disappearing but amateur dancers can be very dedicated and overall it just forms a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. This follows for both problems and benefits and unfortunately amateurs are more likely to get injured than the amount they dance might indicate because they are less likely to take measures to avoid injury. There is no major watershed that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You are right. I did not formulate my thought clearly. By "professional" I meant dance which involves high level of professionalism and dedication, which, in its turn, involves high physical stress. Of course, there always a grey area, but it is still a major dichotomy. One cannot ignore difference between Dancesport competition and sock hop, including health effects. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course, we can write about this difference only if it is covered in reliable sources. May be they better describe this difference. It's just IMO no wikipedian looked from this angle yet. 17:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Just curious but what do you mean by recreational for this topic? Christinafoley95 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
See 'recreation'. Of course, some people break their necks and bones during recreation, this is not the point: we already agreed that there is a continuity of spectrum. To further illustrate the watershed I have in mind consider the following example. You meet two persons. One says "I am prima ballerina in ...; I dance a lot." Another says: "Upon retirement I am taking a lot of ballet lessons. Now I have all the time I want for dancing." Guess where the following reply will sound a bit out of whack: "Wow! Good for your health!" - üser:Altenmann >t 08:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you for clearing it up! Christinafoley95 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dance and health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dance and health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Dance and health" page.