Talk:Lindy Hop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article title

why not put this at Lindy hop? -- Tarquin 17:20, 28 December 2002 (UTC)

Text moved from village pump

moved from the Wikipedia:Village pump

I am working on the Lindy Hop articles, which are about 20 different ones at this point. The question is how should I link them together for someone who wants to find all of the articles on a given subject. I have been putting links to most of them at the bottom of all pages, but that is irritating. Is there some some way (or preferred way) (or future preferred way) to link them together, like chapters in a book, or slides in a presentation? -- xxx

is there a "parent" article? -- Tarquin 17:53 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

The main parent currently is (dance move). This is not a real problem for dance, but linking together articles for food would be very difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.17.34 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2003 (UTC)

frankie manning and NCLS

Who is Frankie Manning, and what does "NCLS 2003" mean? RickK 00:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Frankie Manning was the first Lindy Hopper to do aerials in competition in 1935 at the Savoy. The only other person to influence the dance that much is Shorty George. FM is still alive and teaching.

The NCLS 2003 was short hand for the Frankie Manning workshop in Oakland, put on by the NCLS in 2003. FM usually gives a talk about history at NCLS events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.134.9.1 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2004 (UTC)

---

Cleanup

I added the cleanup tag to this article since it obviously needs some work. It has already exceeded the recommended article size, and it generally is poorly-written compared to other Wikipedia articles. There are also too many external links. I will probably do the cleanup myself unless anyone else has some recommendations. Some of the things I plan to do are as follows:

• Remove most, if not all, of the external links to local scenes and bands. As was mentioned above, this is not supposed to be a link farm. Having so many external links is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Let me know if anyone thinks that some should be kept, but you would need to have a good reason to do so.
• Remove the "To Do" section. I may make some of the changes mentioned in this section, but it doesn't belong on the article itself. If there are things that need to be changed on the article, they should be mentioned on the Talk page, not the body of the article.
• Make some general spelling, grammar, and style corrections. This article is full of basic errors like this.

What I probably will NOT do is change the content of the article. Unless something stands out to me as being blatantly wrong, I'm going to keep the same basic information that is already there. If anyone has any objections or recommendations to this cleanup, please mention them here before I start (which will be soon).

--Cswrye 01:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please move the ToDo and other info useful for work into the talk page, raher than delete it altogether. mikka (t) 00:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Below is the information that was in the "To Do" section. --Cswrye 00:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What was the first year of the modern swing out?
What were the other clubs in Harlem in 1927, 1935, and so on?
(numerous) Other cities?
Who were the leading dancers and styles at each club and city?
1935: Who else moved to the Savoy in 1935?
Perhaps the change in generation in 1935 coincided with improvement
in the economy. (Look up)
Get a link to the Gap commercial.
[http://www.swing-music.com/coolstuff.html The Gap commercial and
other video clips]
What happened to George Snowden?
What happened to everyone in Whitey's Lindy Hoppers?
Harlem Renaissance
Rock and Roll dancing
Vaudeville (PG) versus Burlesque (R)
Frankie Manning's "Can He Dance" Famous people showed up at the
Savoy all the time, including movie stars like Clark Gable.
The dancers were unimpressed. The main question was, "Can he (she)
dance?"

Notes

If you have notes about information that should be added to an article, put them on the Talk page, not on the article itself. It looks very bad to have notes on the article, and that's one of the reasons that Talk pages exist. --Cswrye 17:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If anyone removes notes or todo items, please copy them into this scetion instead of deleting them all together, because they may disappear and the ideas may be lost. Deleting them one sidedly is very inconvinient for future contributers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael2005 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

lindy hop today

)QAD( It may be hard to discuss ongoing movements in Lindy Hop today. I still believe that the Groove Era is alive to a degree, and not everyone has moved on towards a Revival phase within their dancing. As for the 'Old Skool Revival,' this is really more of a trend with the dancers. That groups are starting to look back to improve their dancing now is important. Up until recently, information which held the key to exploring the work of dancers decades before our time was passed around by a small circle of collectors. With the ability to distribute on a more widespread basis, i.e. Natch.net circa 2001, dancers from all over became more interested in recreating vintage dance styles. You might be able to tie trends to outside influences such as technology, the age of Disco and it's influence on the sophisticated swing dances, which in turn influenced to a large degree the 'Groove Era.' While the sophisticated swing dances are derivative from lindy hop, they also contribute a great deal. The fact that they are derived from Lindy often results in certain concepts and principles of dancing which retained from the original dancers who had adapted the dance to fit new music. Is all this needed in an encyclopedic article about swing dancing? no. Give them the objective facts about the dance and its origins.

--69.107.135.181 09:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)The points above are very good. There should be a way to include that on the development of the dance, and the spread of technology as a catalyst in helping the dance evolve through both interchange and access to original materials. not less important then TOBA influence on jazz dance. As far as "Groove Dancing", its much better to discuss it as modern influence on lindy hop driven by the change in music. I have no doubt that Lindy Hop dancers will always have the desire to dance to other Jazz and Jazz derived music, and that their skill level will increase in time and allow them to pursue it with the same skill level as pursuing the 'Old Skool Revival', as well as demand better music of this genre.

     Also, what do you mean by modern swingout?

--69.107.135.181 09:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Whatever modern swingout is, it should be discussed in the page dedicated to swingout

'origin of 'lindy hop' as a name-

Wasn't the dance named after Charles Lindbergh? -- Zoe

That is the myth, which was widely published in newspapers. The truth is much murkier. The term "lindy hop" had been used for many decades before as a general term for social dances, in African-American communities. Probably people had various reasons for using various names, until the Lindbergh story stuck. Now, we will never know.

I heard an announcer read the headline of a newspaper that happened to be lying around: "Lindy Hops the Atlantic." I guess that's just another story.24.64.223.203 20:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

--

I'm removing the last paragraph of the section discussing the origin of the name "Lindy Hop". The name "Lindy Hop" was supposedly coined in 1927 or 1928, but AFAIK Lindberg's Nazi sympathies weren't know until the 1930s. (The word "Nazi" wasn't in wide use in English until 1930 and the party didn't rise to power until 1933.) If the section is to be re-added, I suggest somehow substantiating that Lindberg's racism would have been well-known in 1927-8. - szarka

--69.107.130.204 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) this is a good point. I will do more research on that one. How did Malcolm X feel being such a big fan of lindy hop in the 40's if he knew lindberg had been a nazi (which as an activist he surely had known)? who knows...

PlainJane 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I have reworked this section to present all the 'lindy hop name myths' that were in the original article. More could be added to this section if necesary. I have also added comments that lindy hop developed as a vernacular dance whose history is unclear in specifics, and have made a couple of references to the fact that Frankie Manning is the most influential source of history for lindy primarily because he's still alive.

In the section "Origin of the name", I'm not finding the exact quote attributed to Snowden in Stearns' book. The closest is this, from chapter 39: "'What are you doing with your feet,' asked the reporter, and Shorty, without stopping, replied, "The Lindy." Also, note that Stearns does (in chapter 40) quote Snowden as saying that "some people began to call it the Lindberg Hop after 1927", which would seem to confirm the naming myth the original author of this section seems to be trying to dispell; although Snowden also says that "it didn't last". - szarka

-- --69.107.130.204 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I think that the "lindberg hop" name was an attempt to tie the lindy to lindberg and not visa versa, and that's why it didn't last. in any case, the usage of the name hop to describe both swing dancing and the basic step was well documented. About using Lindy to describe social dancing; I've heard it word of mouth from various teachers in credible dance events. can't remember where was a verifiable online or printed source for usage of lindy as a slang for a lady and a dance, but I clearly remember coming across it. I will try to locate it. it also appeared in other this page a few versions back and I edited it in into the current version. most credible sources that studied the history of lindy hop agree that the shorty george story is only one popular legend (may or may not be true), and that the source of the name is most likely lost in the mists of time.

I think its important in this article to offer a broad historical review of the origins of the name instead of falling into the default myth, because it properly helps people understand the evolution of the dance from earlier dance forms, puts the dance in context, and articulates the existance of jazz and swing dancing well before the 1920's. and not like some websites say "lindy hop was created in honor of lindberg's hop across the atlantic" or even "a dance rendeition of the atlantic hop, where the dancers jump acrobatically on stage". or even that shorty george "invented lindy hop from breakaway". lindy hop evolved over time within a social folk setting. that is misleading. it makes much more sense that the word hop in lindy came from earlier dances and mobes that used the word hop instead of lindbergs "hop" in 1927, especially when people were doing jazz and swing dances way before that.

is lindy hop a folk jazz dance, vernacular jazz dance or street jazz dance?

--69.107.135.181 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC) OK, here is one:

Is lindy hop a "folk jazz dance", "vernacular jazz dance", or "street jazz dance"?

Lindy hop was called "the true american folk dance" by time magazine in 1941 (?), yet in the professional literature it is described as a "vernacular jazz dance", while some social dancers call it "street dance".

Is any of these correct, or do all the three are correct at the same time? wikipedia definition of folk dance mantions that folk dance is reserved to dances bound by tradition - which is true to a sense, Lindy Hop is heavily based on tradition, but there is also lots of innovation as living art form which may classify it as a street dance.

any thoughts, or just leave it alone and not mention it in the main article?

---

--

The terms "folk dance" and "vernacular dance", objectively, mean the same thing. IMHO, either is "correct" as a description of Lindy Hop. However, "vernacular jazz dance" is, in my experience, the label Lindy dancers and scholars choose to apply. Lindy is a "jazz dance" in the sense of Marshall & Jean Stearns' book Jazz Dance: The Story of American Vernacular Dance (a sense that is not well-reflected in the current "Jazz Dance" article on Wikipedia). - szarka

--69.107.130.204 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)yeah, the "jazz dance" article got to be fixed, it has very little info of traditional and vernacular jazz pre 1955.

about "folk" vs "vernacular": wikipedia defines folk as something that is traditional and doesn't change. it goes on to say that "hip hop" which is considered vernacular, is not folk becauase it keeps breaking new boundries and developing, hence they label it as "street". it may only be semantics, but semantics is part of writing an article that belongs in wikipedia. (most dancers will say "why bother? just dance and call it 'dancing'")

it's almost as if an article for "vernacular dance" has to be created.

-- PlainJane 09:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I have reworked the first section to accomodate these differing opinions. I have also started articles on African American vernacular dance and vernacular dance

article layout

Should the history section be first? Chungkuo 15:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The first section currently says "what lindy hop is" before the history, which is "how lindy hop evolved."

PlainJane 09:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) This issue has been addressed

editing 'lindy hop'

---

I'm not sure how to add my signature to this so please bear with me....

Here are my notes on my recent edits of the lindy hop article.

I have done a little editing to group key topics together and to tidy up the written expression. I haven't deleted anything other than typos. But I have moved bits around within the article.

I have added a reference to 'Afro-American' dance in the first paragraph as the following sentence was making this point obliquely (by referring to 'Africa' and 'Europe' and the USA in the following sections). I was tempted to add the word 'vernacular' (as lindy hop is grouped under 'Afro-American vernacular dance' in much of the dance studies literature discussing the topic), but didn't as I realise that this phrase is fairly controversial in swing dance culture.

I have moved the reference to 'where lindy hop is danced' further down to the section on 'scenes', and have specified as many countries as I can think of (though people may feel this is over-kill). I think it's important to make the point that there's lindy hop danced in cities other than the USA. It might be nice to add a list of cities - I'm not sure anyone has any real notion of how wide-spread lindy hop is today, and it might be nice to have some sort of record...

I have also added a reference to the 'swingout' as the fundamental step in lindy hop to the first section. I also make the point that the swingout combines both partner dancing (from the European tradition) and open position/solo work (from the African and other traditions). I'd like to add a reference to how this open position allows for improvisation, which is central to jazz as well as lindy hop, but feel it's perhaps my own opinion. I know my addition of the swingout in this section, plus making explicit the link between partner dancing and solo dancing in lindy hop is perhaps my co-opting the above discussion (from January) about the topic. Please delete if it's too presumptive of me. I was tempted to combine the comments on lindy hop being a 'jazz dance' or a 'folk jazz dance' or a 'street folk dance' into one sentence, as that makes more sense, but considering the ongoing discussion of the issue, I thought it'd be best to leave them all in. It might be best to replace all that with a paragraph like:

"There is much discussion within lindy hop communities today about whether the dance should be positioned within a 'folk', 'street' or 'vernacular' dance tradition. Most dancers agree that lindy hop is a 'jazz dance' (in reference to its relationship with jazz music, though it drew much from concert jazz dance of its contemporary era). Academic dance studies historians today, however, clearly position lindy hop within an Afro-American vernacular dance tradition. One of the key defining features of a vernacular dance is that it is continually changing in response to the needs and interests of its participants. In this way, it shares much with vernacular language. Lindy hop is also often positioned within the family of 'swing dances' - a family whose members developed during the 'swing era' - the era when swinging jazz was most popular."

I also have many academic dance studies/dance history studies references to add, but am reluctant to do so, seeing as how much of this literature has failed to draw on living lindy hoppers for their first-person accounts in any detail. The Stearns themselves - one of the most-frequently quoted sources - have been critiqued for inaccuracies in their work. This article would benefit no end from references to the biographies and autobiographies of dancers from the era (including Norma Miller).

Thanks for your work on this article! You've made some very good edits. You may consider becoming a registered user since that will make it easier to edit articles receive communication. I especially appreciate your efforts to maintain an NPOV, which many editors, especially newer ones, have trouble doing. I do have a couple of comments. First of all, I removed a few links to local message boards. Wikipedia's guidelines on external links generally discourages their use, and they should generally only be used when they provide information about the topic itself. Also, at one time, half of this article consisted of links to local scenes, which was very messy and went beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do. I also would like to comment on your desire to add biographies to the article. I agree that biographies would be a good thing, but they should be in their own articles rather than added to this one. The Lindy Hop article is already reaching its maximum limit, and biographies are usually best located in their own articles anyway. By the way, if you have any references, please feel free to add them. That is something that this article is badly in need of. I hope to see you keep editing! --Cswrye 16:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

PlainJane 02:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Thanks for the feedback Cswrye. I've signed up as 'PlainJane'. I'd be interested in continuing to edit this page, and can offer a few suggestions to both reduce the length of the article (obviously a concern), and to streamline the structure: - to begin the article with a brief pgh explaining that this is a revived historical dance, and then with a brief comment about both periods ('swing era' and 'now'). stuff about how the dance developed should be in the 'history' section. - the first section could, logically, be the 'history' section. - the next section could then be 'now' with stuff about the scenes - and then close with specifics about lindy technique. i'd argue for putting the technique stuff at the end because it's mostly in reference to contemporary lindy hop. In fact, I'd probably move all that stuff to the Swing Dancing book, as it's really not something the casual reader would be interested in, but would complement the ongoing book project.

One way of managing the external links issue may be to begin articles on the major sites (eg yehoodi, natch, poy.no) within wikipedia.

I'm happy to do all these edits myself, but didn't want to rush in and tread on people's toes. I may do more extensive edits when I'm more familiar with wikipedia culture/practice.

)

editing and deletion of some sections

PlainJane 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) I have deleted some references to other historic dance forms (including detailed descriptions of black bottom, tap charleston, etc, as they repeat information provided in other articles, without actually contributing to a discussion of lindy hop in a meaningful way. If the information was not available on another page, I have moved it to preserve the content. I am somewhat sceptical about much of the material found on the streetswing site and copied here, as streetswing often contains factual errors.

When I get a chance I'll rework the sections 'other dances' and 'history' to provide a brief overview of lindy hop's development from a number of other dances, and to make the 'history' section more useful. Much of the material from the very first pgh could be moved to the 'history' section and the first pgh then devoted to a brief explanation of what lindy hop is - eg. lindy = social partner dance with elements of solo dancing, developed in the 20s and 30s in association with swinging jazz music, revived in the 80s and popular now in many countries around the world. etc.

The 'origins of the name' section could also do with a reworking as it reads as a series of conflicting points at the moment, and could be restructured with a comment like: 'the history of the name is uncertain. here are a few conflicting accounts drawn from a range of source, both academic and colloquial'.

This article is now 35kb (longer than preferred) but could easily be reduced by: - moving/deleting 'other' dances (or integrating this with brief references into the history section)

- moving/deleting the 'musicality' section (as it is repeated in the musicality article, but still retaining a brief reference to the issue)

- reworking the 'musical styling' section to make it fit the 'lindy now' section and reducing it (though these are interesting issues and could lead to articles dealing with each 'era' or 'style' specifically - eg an article on 'lindy groove' could be interesting)

- the 'music to dance to' section could be revised to mention the role of dancing to DJed and live bands.

Much of this material could be moved to the swing dancing book under the section lindy hop.

PlainJane 09:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC) I have moved the 'other dances' section to the swing dancing article instead.

PlainJane 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I have done some very thorough editing of this article, up to the end of the 'neo swing' era. I'll have a go at the next half ('lindy hop today') when i get a chance. This second section is pretty messy, and much of this material could be moved to the 'swing dancing' wikibook (specifically 'musicality' and 'partnering technique'. I'd also reduce the section on 'music to dance to' to one or two lines in the general section on 'scenes'. The list of 'related swing dances' could probably be deleted and replaced with 'swing dancing' as all these dances are listed there. Same goes for the 'routines' list.

the section describing 'styles' of lindy hop (in 'lindy hop today'), plus some references to the developments of different styles (groove, hip hop etc) could be combined in a section which actually describes the dance, in the 'lindy hop today' section. this could also absorb some of the 'musicality' , 'music to dance to' stuff.

I hope I haven't been too pre-emptive with this editing. The only material I've deleted has been that which I know to be erroneous or otherwise irrelevent to the discussion. Most information I've reworded and combined to make clear points and to reduce the words while still keeping the points people were trying to make. I think that the transition from 'swing dancing' to 'lindy hop' produced much of this mess and the article is now tidier.

Please give me feedback or comments if you feel I've over-stepped my bounds.

Aerials era (1935 to 1941)

I recommend removing the listing of dancers after the paragraph that starts "Part of the important dance troupe...". This list is a (dated) replication of information on the Whitey's_Lindy_Hoppers page. If no one objects I'll probably move this in a week or so. Waarmstr 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition of local (L.A.) lindy hop scene info

PlainJane 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC) While I think that it's useful and interesting to add information about local scenes (in fact, I think it might be GREAT to collate a list of local scenes and events/camps/exchanges), I wonder if we should list _all_ of the city scenes here in this article? If I (or anyone else) ever gets a 'lindy hop today' article going, that may be the better place... Ideas, comments, thoughts?

Please keep in mind that wikipedia is not a web directory, neither it is Yellow Pages. I suggest to go easy on scenes. If a place is notable, write an article about it. If not, it doesn't deserve any listing. BTW, please sign your posts after the text, not in front of it. `'mikka (t) 15:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

About a year ago, half of the Lindy Hop article was a list of web sites to various local scenes. You can probably still find that in the article's history. One of the first things I did as a Wikipedia editor was remove that list. I don't think that a local scene should be listed unless it is extremely notable, and even that is rather precarious since pretty much every scene can try to come up with a reason why it is notable. --Cswrye 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Also" in Canada?

In Toronto there is a huge community of Swing dancers. In most of Europe you will hardly find people who have ever heard of Lindy Hop. De mortuis... 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

PlainJane 03:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Please add any countries to the list that have been missed. While there has not been any formal census of lindy hoppers, the US's large population is proportionally represented in lindy hop by a large number of dancers. There are of course large communities outside the US - Melbourne (Australia) alone is home to around 3000 lindy hoppers. If I'm in error re these observations, please correct the article. It may be interesting to start articles on local swing dance communities around the world...?

I'm not sure that a list of every country with a swing community really adds to the article. I'd err on the side of more general rather than more specific. Articles on local swing communities could be interesting, although you'd have to convince people of their individual notability (which might be hard). I could have my mind changed about this though....--Koeppen 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lead

I was bold with the lead and tried to simplify and clean it up per WP:Lead. I started a comment to say - be bold back! If you don't like the changes, change it back, I won't be offended.--Koeppen 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A question on the lead: the article originally mentioned that men and women dancing together was "forbidden" in African dances. This is information not mentioned in either this article or Lindy hop history. 1) It should be added somewhere! Because 2) I wondered about the word "forbidden". Was it forbidden because society did not allow it? That was the impression that I got, but then I didn't know if perhaps African dancers just did not use the closed position.--Koeppen 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Those changes rock. Yes, keeping the stuff about 'forbidden'-ness of male/female partner dancing would be useful. In the lindy hop history article or perhaps in the African American vernacular dance article. PlainJane 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On Jitterbug (whoops, sorry, jitterbug).

Can someone explain the difference between lindy hop and jitterbug? It it just that lindy is 8-count and jitterbug is 6-count? They seem very closely related and the wikipedia article on jitterbug says it's a subset of lindy, but doesn't go into detail. The point: I've found some public domain "historical" (1940s) images of people dancing - the captions say they're doing jitterbug but without the caption I'd have said they were doing lindy. I.e. is it wrong to use those photos in the lindy article even though someone told us they're doing jitterbug?--Koeppen 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot to that question. During the swing era, lindy hop was often called jitterbug, so at one time, they were the same thing. Nowadays, the term has taken on a different meaning, and if you ask twenty different people, you'll probably get twenty different answers. Some people says that it is the same thing as East Coast Swing and/or Single Swing. Some people says that the only difference is the type of music it is danced to or the culture of the crowd it attracts. Some people say that it is a subset of (or a different style of) lindy hop rather than a different dance. In my experience, I've noticed that lindy hoppers tend to be more likely to treat jitterbug and east coast swing as a subset of lindy hop, and non-lindy hoppers almost always treat them as different dances. An entry on the East Coast Swing talk page gives one person's opinion of the differences. Take your pick. --Cswrye 01:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm. With all the different interpretations I'm guessing that my original hankering to merge the jitterbug and lindy hop articles would be met with hostility - I'll hold off for now. But perhaps a discussion like this (i.e. the relationship between the different names/dances) could be worked up with some references for the lindy page.--Koeppen 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't merge the jitterbug and lindy hop articles. In Australia the term 'lindy hop' isn't well known at all - it's all jitterbug to most non-dancers. There was a delay in lindy reaching Australian pop culture, so the term jitterbug means something different in that respect. But in general terms, many Australian lindy hoppers associated 'jitterbug' with partner dancing of the very late 40s and early 50s, rather than the 30s. In terms of the actual word 'jitterbug', it's a 'jive' expression... my memories of this are kind of hazy, but I think 'jitterjuice' is a coloquial term for alcohol (I think - I can't really remember). There's something to do with with either Fats Waller or Cab Calloway involved in this story as well. PlainJane

I just wanted to paste yet one more take from jitterbuzz.com because the etymology still intrigues me:

LINDY or JITTERBUG: The correct name for the dance is "Lindy Hop". "Jitterbug" has an etymology similar to words like "Egghead", Beatnik", "Hippie", and "Punk". In each case, the dominant culture applied a pejorative term to a developing youth trend; by virtue of the social momentum generated by the trend, the word lost its negative connotation and was adopted by the participants in the trend. In Harlem slang, a "Jitterbug" is an alcoholic who experiences Delirium Tremens (violent shaking and hallucinations.) Those who did not care for the lively antics of the early Lindy Hoppers derided them as "Jitterbugs." As time passed, the media called the dance "Lindy" and the people who danced it "Jitterbugs". Finally, with passage of time, Lindy became the "Jitterbug's Dance" or just "Jitterbug."

Of course there were no references on this one either.--(once known as Koeppen)Will.i.am 08:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that from a variety of sources as well. Lindy hoppers were called "jitterbugs" in the swing era because they looked like they were convulsing when they danced. Like you, most of the places where I've heard that don't include references. That tends to be a problem with dances in general since much of the information on dances when they first get started is passed down orally and isn't put into print until years (and sometimes decades) after the fact, and by then, its reliability is questionable. I've found an entertaining resource on the history of various swing dances from Kurt Lichtmann, the swing dance instructor at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, but he cites very few sources as well. --Cswrye 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I'd like to notice that in wikipedia it is a general policy to keep external links as few as possible. The reason is simple: there is no way to ensure that the links will live or will contain relevant info. Normally only links of encyclopedic value are stored, for issues not covered in the article or for more detailed coverage.

Also, wikipedia is encyclopedia and not link farm and not a billboard for advertising companies, venues, etc. There are plenty of the corresponding places over the net for this.

I am going to brutally trim ext links from this article. If some venues, bands, etc., are notable, please write the corresponding wikipedia articles, wikilink them from here and put the immediately related external links there.

Mikkalai 20:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There must be a way to include relavent links to scene websites without going overboard. Sites like JiveJunction, SwingoutDC, Windyhop and Swingmonkey are valuable resources for anyone looking to find dancing in their area and seem like a worthwhile addition to this article. There are a plethora of former external links (bands, venues, etc) that probably aren't as vital to anyone looking for further info, but links to the community sites (a Lindy Hop staple ever since Yehoodi started the trend) seem valuable to me.

-FoolsRun

Thanks for the comment, FoolsRun. Do keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article, not an Internet portal. The purpose is to provide general information about the topic to those who may not know anything about it. While links to specific swing dance communities may be helpful to people who want to find swing dancing in their area, they would not provide general information about lindy hop itself, which is what this article is for. That being said, I'm not completely against putting some links to communities that particularly stand out due to their historical significance or their recognition among the lindy hop community. The problem is deciding which ones should be included. I would not be opposed to a few sites like JiveJunction and Windyhop, but we certainly don't need to list the web site of every swing scene in the world (which is what was happening before). Also, note that we shouldn't put external links to sites that already have internal links. For example, since there is already an article for Yehoodi, it doesn't need an external link. --Cswrye 00:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

PlainJane 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) I have deleted the streetswing link as it frequently contains erroneous information. the savoystyle site is far more useful and accurate and is sanctioned by frankie manning. deleting external links is a good idea, and creating wikipedia articles on the sites themselves may provide a more useful way of retaining the information without cluttering up this article with lots of external links.

PlainJane 02:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC) I have removed this:

• learn to lindy hop online - iDance.net contains a very large database of lindy hop instructional dance video clips, that can be downloaded.

as idance is a commercial venture and this link amounts to commercial advertising. Please comment if you feel this was an unwarranted edit.

PlainJane 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Please see discussion of this issue on User:Mikkalai's talk page:

I've just removed another external link to a learn-to-dance site, for all the same reasons we've discussed here and elsewhere. PlainJane 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Text

This text was deleted from the article without explanation. I'm putting it here in case it should really go back in.--Will.i.am 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Frankie Manning, working with his partner Freida Washington, invented the ground breaking 'Air Step' or 'aerial' in 1935. An Air Step is a dance move where both of your partners' feet leave the ground in an often quite dramatic manner and most importantly it is done in time with the music. This type of move is now seen as quintessentially Lindy.

Pictures

PlainJane 11:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) This article could really do with some photos/pictures of dancing.

Waarmstr 16:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC) What were you thinking for pictures? General common poses? I think a couple vintage shots (possibly already uploaded for specific movies, or troupes) as well as a few contemporary artistic shots capturing some of the emotion of lindy hop. There are a few galleries with nice shots that may open the copyrights for a few examples. I'll go ahead and email them.

PlainJane 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC) did you find any images, waarmstr? I don't know anything about adding images to articles, and I haven't explored the copyright issues with using image from other sources. I think that some historical images would be nice (particularly for the related lindy hop history article, and also some pictures of lindy hop today, perhaps?

This is a double affirmative on all the comments about needing pictures. Articles are interesting just because of the pictures! The hard part is getting uncopy-righted material, everything vintage I've been finding is under wraps. Modern stuff should be easy though, right? Where's my camera?--Koeppen 08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you add some basic demographic info with photos please - eg 'blah blah and blah blah doing blah blah in City, Country, date. I'll have a look for some photos to add as well. PlainJane 08:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added as much as I know to the file on the Commons (where the images are located) and tried to summarize it for the caption (feel free to edit the caption if you think more info is useful there).--Will.i.am 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was really thinking more in terms of crediting participants and photographers and adding useful historical tidbits. Though highlighting local differences might be nice (though those photos could have been taken in pretty much any scene with anglo dancers!). PlainJane 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject for Lindy hop

To those of you who edit this heavily, would a WikiProject page help things out? Is there one that I missed? ~ Shawn 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There's already WikiProject Dance. It's hardly active at all right now, so I'm inclined to think that our efforts should be joined right now in an attempt to get the most editors involved in the project. However, there is a precendent in that WikiProject Tango exists. If you want to create it, go for it. —Cswrye 20:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think enough of our historians are active on Wikipedia to make it work right now, and I'm relatively new and not a historian. I was just thinking that it might help give some direction to the mainteance of lindy hop and related pages. ~ Shawn 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why have all the community site articles been deleted?

Why have the articles pertaining to Yehoodi, Swingmonkey, and other online communities been deleted from Wikipedia? The articles were encyclopedic and no less important than the the pages that exist for blogs like Something Awful or Kotaku.

Why have all the Lindy Hop blog and community site entries been deleted, but entries for blogs regarding other online communities (gaming, hacking, etc) are allowed to remain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.10.67 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I Second this. The pages were encyclopedic in nature and certain did not fall under the speedy deletion criteria. Secondly, as linking to actual Wiki pages describing dance scenes instead of merely linking to another website for the information, the previous discussion is still honored. What's going on here? ~ Shawn 17:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yehoodi wasn't deleted, only Swingmonkey and MinnesotaLindy were. I think that they were speedy deleted recently for violating WP:WEB. If you want them back, you can list them under Deletion review. In the meantime, I don't think that there's any reason to have wikilinks to articles that don't exist. We can re-add them if the deletion review overturns the decision. —Cswrye 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a commet with the Deleter User:NCurse. I probably wasn't polite enough, but I'm ticked that a person who lists himself as knowledgable in science, medicine, and genetics (failing to list any lindy or other dance credits) felt qualified to question the assertion of a dance/entertainment stub to be insufficent. Personally, I think the home of ULHS is a good qualification to assert importance and significance to modern day lindy hop. But maybe I have the wrong vision of WikiPedia and recent history (facts, not interpretations) is not allowed here. ~ Shawn 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To add my piece: it's extremely difficult to justify the encyclopedic importance of these kinds of sites, which is usually done by citing references. The Yehoodi article proposes that it's "one of the oldest and most frequented swing dance community websites online today", but even that doesn't have a reference. Lindy hoppers aren't the ones proposing these deletions, it's people who don't use those resources and get to an article like Swing Monkey and say, "it's a completely unreferenced article about an online forum. Who cares?" Unfortunately a couple of votes from people who DO use them isn't enough. If you are going to make a case to keep Swingmonkey or MinnesotaLindy I'd suggest getting some references (even online magazine articles) to make your case.--Will.i.am 20:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ps - I'm guessing that the other sites for online community articles are going to come under similar fire pretty soon.--Will.i.am 20:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

pps - I agree with you that stubs should have time to provide information and references before being speedily deleted.--Will.i.am 20:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If a case can be logically made for keeping articles for Swingmonkey and MNLindy off wikipedia, I'll be happy to hear it, but Yehoodi's article is exactly the same kind of article, simply with more information, not better information, so it should be deleted as well. Likewise, Something Awful, Kotaku,MilkandCookies, and the hundreds of other articles about websites and communities should be considered the same way.

It seems as though there's some kind of bias towards articles that describe sites or communities that are popular among the web-savvy (which wikipedia editors necessarily are). -- M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.10.67 (talk • contribs)

One difference between the community sites and the other sites like Yehoodi and Something Awful is that the latter group are internationally-known sites that are mentioned and linked to by many other sites around the web. The articles for Minnesota Lindy and Swingmonkey gave the impressions that they were local sites that no one would care about if you didn't live in the area. Wikipedia generally doesn't keep articles that are purely of local interest, so you'll have to establish that the communities are recognized outside of their host cities. Try focusing on some of the more wide-scale national events, such at the ULHS, and the notability of these articles will be more apparent to other Wikipedia editors. That being said, there is a recognized systemic bias on Wikipedia in that articles tend to be geared towards popular culture and technical interests, although there are attempts to crack down on that. —Cswrye 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, you're right about that. I had a good discussion with the deleting admin about it. Are sub-pages subject to such rigerous constraints as main pages? Would these pages fit better as Lindy Hop/MinnesotaLindy ?? ~ Shawn 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Subpages were disabled in the main article space quite some time ago, and now they're only used in the talk, user, project, and portal namespaces. All article subpages are their own articles now, so they must abide by the same guidelines. If an article isn't able to stand on its own, there are three options: expand it, merge it with another article, or delete it. Expanding it is the best option, but it takes the most work, and the reality is that there will be some topics that will never be appropriate for a general interest encyclopedia. If MinnesotaLindy is at risk for deletion, merging it into another article may be appropriate. The most likely candidate is the Lindy hop today article. This is the best option if the topic is closely related to the one you're merging it into, but other editors may still take it out if they don't think that it improves the overall quality of the article. —Cswrye 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting. The Lindy hop today page includes just as many references, zero, as the two deleted scene pages, however, no one has complained about the lack of sources there. That page has a lot of red links and really needs a lot of work. ~ Shawn 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The enforcement of the verifiability policy is weird. Technically, an article can be deleted if it has no references or if the number of references is insufficient. However, most of the articles on Wikipedia don't have many references. Since Wikipedia is considered a work in progress, a lot of topics can get by without references if they show the potential to have references in the future or if you can convince everyone on AFD that the topic is notable even though it currently lacks references. The latter case can often be hard to make unless it's a well-known topic. Another reality is that many articles that probably should be deleted haven't just because they're so obscure that no one who would want them to be deleted has found them. —Cswrye 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But what about topics that have no formally published references? The insistance on published references is problematic with regard to topics like lindy, which is a vernacular dance and has very few published references _at all_ PlainJane 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a problem, but I'm not sure if there's much that can be done about it. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it is very, very rare for an article to be considered credible if it doesn't cite references. I think that the solution is just to do the best that we can. And for those situations where we can't use published references, well, we can try to get by on the ignore all rules policy. —Cswrye 04:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-war era

PlainJane 09:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC) I am highly sceptical of the claim that mambo developed from lindy hop. While some of the dances developing in countries like cuba (including Mambo) were no doubt influenced by African slaves, I think lindy hop shares an african history with mambo but did not produce. Mambo and other latin dancers may have absorbed swing dancing themes and moves (and vice versa) in both the 1930s and today, but ... the point that many types of dances were danced in places like the Savoy ballroom is important, though.

PlainJane 09:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I have deleted much of the material dealing with this topic as it is more relevent to a discussion of mambo and latin dance.

PlainJane 09:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC) this article could benefit from discussion of white dancers and 'hollywood' style lindy hop - it is very 'east coast' heavy. or perhaps this article could become 'history of lindy hop', then a new article 'contemporary lindy hop' could be begun, and 'lindy hop' could be reworked as a very simple outline of what lindy hop is, redirecting to various relevent articles

Ditto! I like the idea of three pages; Lindy Hop, History of Lindy Hop + Contemporary Lindy Hop. Waarmstr 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PlainJane 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC) I have rearranged the article to present a 'history of lindy hop' culminating in 'lindy hop today'. This is followed by the material discussing dance steps and musicality and other technical dance stuff, which really should either be moved to an article called 'lindy hop technique' (and 'music for lindy hopping to') or to the lindy hop/swing dancing wikibook. I've left it here for now because I'm not sure I want to make that big a step. The section on 'social, performance and competition' dance needs to be seriously edited (if not deleted). If it is deleted, a copy could be kept here in case an article called 'lindy hop today' (or similar) is created. When I get the chance I'll start those new articles (history of lindy hop; contemporary lindy hop) and we can cut this 'lindy hop' article down a great deal. It might be nice to have follow-on articles like 'lindy hop music' and 'lindy hop technique' to really round out this subject... comments, ideas, suggestions?

PlainJane 02:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)I have deleted the following section on 'lindy hop moves' as it repeats material from earlier in the article. I'm copying it here so it's not lost, but can perhaps be included in the swing dancing wikibook? I don't have time to integrate it into other pages right now, but this might be a nice way of retaining this section. Please delete this section as you move it to other pages...

--deleted section... Lindy Hop is based on jazz dance and tap dance body movement. Modern Lindy Hop sometimes incoperates movement principles from other schools of dance such as hip hop.

Lindy Hop, being a jazz dance, does not have a single "basic move" as compared to other partner dance forms. It relies on the artistic expression of the dancers involved, whether dancing in a pair, solo or as a part of a routine. There are, however, a number of popular patterns. Some of them are important because they embed key principles of Lindy Hop motion and offer a skeleton on which a dance can be built.

The two key dance patterns of Lindy Hop are the swingout, an 8-count move that usually starts and ends in open position, and the Charleston, an 8-count move that usually starts and ends in closed position. Both moves have many variations. Lindy Hop dancers often use these two dance patterns as a skeleton on which to create their dance choreography - an instant choreography improvised by the dancers on the dance floor at the time of social dancing. Most social Lindy Hop dances are built around variations of the swingout pattern with expansions many improvisational moves.

With that said, The most prevalent idea in Lindy Hop dancing is the swingout, the concept of two partners dancing together, holding each other in close position, and then using the momentum of their movment to "breakaway" - swinging the partners out to open position - while incorporating various jazz movements along the way, and using the momentum and tension resultion from this move to fuel and drive the next movement.

Lindy Hop uses 8-count steps extensively, reflecting the structure of swing music, as well as other counts. The traditional movement is clockwise, which is the opposite of ballroom. ...end of deleted section--

There should be discussion about the differences between Hollywood and Savoy style. It should be mentioned Hollywood style is more 'slotted' in rotation versus Savoy is more 'circular' in motion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.28.174.24 (talk • contribs)

Good point. Actually, the two styles have their own articles altogether, but they should be mentioned in the text here as well. For now I've added the articles in the "See also" section to make them more accessible.--Will.i.am 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Article name change

There's been a movement recently, mainly through the user named Habj, to "uncapitalize" the names of many dances, particularly lindy hop and its related swing dances. Outside of Wikipedia, I rarely see "lindy hop" capitalized, and I don't think it should be a proper name. In light of that, I am suggesting that this article be moved to "Lindy hop", for which a redirect already exists. Any comments? --Cswrye 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it capitalized at a couple of places, but as far as I can see that is incorrect. I agree this page should be moved. // Habj 22:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done the move--Commander Keane 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In my (considerable) experience, Lindy Hop is almost always capitalized as a proper noun when the author takes any care. The most authoritative reference available on the internet can be found at SavoyStyle, where that capitalization is used. In addition, most teachers of the dance use the capitalized form on their web sites, particularly those who have done extensive historical research on the subject (e.g. Ryan Francois & Jenny Thomas, Kenneth & Helena Norbelie, Tony & Aurelie Tye). For a historical reference, Norma Miller uses the capilatized form in her book on the subject, Swinin' at the Savoy. What is the evidence that the name of the dance should not be capitalized? --Michael Richters 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for helping out with the lindy hop articles! In most of the dance articles on Wikipedia, the name of the dance is not capitalized. My desire to "de-capitalize" lindy hop was a matter of consistency. I didn't think that dance styles are proper nouns, and "lindy hop" is usually not capitalized when I see it in print. Also, most editors (including those well-informed on lindy hop) seem to use the lower-case spelling. However, the sources you listed are definitely credible, so there's a good reason to rethink this. However, before we go around and re-capitalize all the dance articles, it might be good to start a discussion about this on the Dance WikiProject. That way, we may be able to develop a written guideline for the issue that will make it clearer for everyone to follow. I could actually go either way (capitalized or not); I'm more concerned with being consistent across dance articles. --Cswrye 04:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this topic could benefit from a thoughtful discussion. Since I wrote my first response to this thread, I have developed one idea that may help refine my position. I believe that the names of the dances are proper nouns, but only when used to identify the dance as a singular entity. Thus, I would find it acceptable to write "He teaches Lindy Hop", but "They're a bunch of lindy hoppers". I've spoken to two other dancers this evening on the topic, and one replied that she would always capitalize (even in the case where I might not). The other was less inclined to use capitalization, but did not indicate a strong preference. One thing that was pointed out to me is that in the term "lindy hopper" it is not necessarily clear that the "er" is modifying "lindy hop" rather than just "hop". Another thing that might cause a lindy hopper to be more inclined to use capitalization is the lack of certain word forms. Because Lindy Hop is a dance, but not a musical form, we don't say "they danced a lindy hop" in the same way that we might say "they danced a tango". I don't have many handy references, but I believe this latter use of "a tango" would not commonly be capitalized in print, though I would still capitalize it when referring to the name of the dance ("the Tango" or "Argentine Tango"), as most dance studios do. I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia, so I may not act quickly, but I do plan to start a discussion per your suggestion when I get a chance to familiarize myself with the use of the project namespace (unless someone else beats me to it). I would certainly like to hear from ballroom dancers and others before attempting to make any changes. --Michael Richters 04:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on this issue, other than to note that in my doctoral thesis (which is on swing dances) I use Lindy Hop, at the suggestion of my supervisor and reviewers of articles I've published in academic journals. This was largely to maintain consistency with other dance names which required capitalisation to avoid confusion - eg Itch, Blues dancing (to differentiate from the verb itch and the musical form 'blues'). But I don't expect this to apply to all contexts. You could make a (somewhat desperate) argument for capitlising the 'L' at least, if you're arguing that the dance was named for Lindbergh. BUT if you are to go about moving articles, changing names, etc please do it consistently - I've caught a few that you've missed in the body of articles. PlainJane 07:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was just recently moved, and I had not gone through the articles and changed the capitalization yet. That's a good thing too since we may be changing it back. I admit that I probably jumped the gun on changing the name of the article. --Cswrye 14:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I noticed this issue in the first place was because of the article title with only the first word capitalized (as required by Wikipedia). The term "Lindy hop" strikes me as decidedly incorrect, whether or not the name is derived from Charles Lindbergh's nickname. Either both words should be capitalized, or niether. --Michael Richters 14:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've danced at workshops in the '80s and '90s with Franky Manning, Ryan and Jenny, and many others, and looking at the programs I've kept, it's always "Lindy Hop".

  --William Allen Simpson 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just asked at the Wikipedia reference desk/Language if dance styles are proper nouns and should be capitalized as such. The answer I got was "no - unless they are derived from a proper noun". That means that if there was a guy or a place that the style was named after it should be capitalized, otherwise not. The logical conclusion would be that "Lindy" is capitalized if it was derived from Lindbergh, which leads to "Lindy hop". If it wasn't named after him (or someone else), it should be "lindy hop". Wintran 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

An exception would probably be if, for example, Lindbergh was called "The Lindy Hop" and the style was named after that nickname. Then it would be "Lindy Hop". Wintran 11:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

argh! There's an ongoing discussion here on wikipedia and elsewhere about the history of the name 'lindy hop', with respect to whether or not it was named after Lindbergh (though that's the general consensus), so I'm not sure referring back to Lindbergh is all that useful, really. I've seen it written in all variations (though mostly 'lindy' in casual conversation/writing), in all sorts of literature Flicking through my books, here, I see Stearns and Stearns (the most oft-quoted reference) use caps for all dances, and refer to it as "Lindy", Jacqui Malone calls it "the lindy" and "lindy hop", and authors use a similar range of variations. Frankly, as it's a vernacular dance and not an institutionalised or concert dance, the fact that it has no definitive written version is kind of heartening - it's not how you write it but the way that you dance it that counts. Perhaps, if it's considered an important enough issue (and I'm not sure it is), a brief note to the effect could be added to the article (either here or in the lindy history article) where the 'history of the name' is discussed. Man, this is a tricky issue! As I said, I'm cool with either lindy hop or Lindy hop, or even Lindy hop (to suit wikipedia style). So long as we're consistent. I'm happy to go through and fix up caps when/if we change again. Just give a heads up on which articles need it. PlainJane 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Mikkalai, an admin, has gone through many of the Lindy Hop articles and changed them back to the capitalized titles. Apparently, we'll need to use "Lindy Hop" from now on. --Cswrye 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this discussion, because I started the recapitalization from the different end. The rationale is plain and simple: Names of dances and names of dance figures are proper names. For example, there is waltz musical style, waltz generic type of 3/4-metre dances and Waltz, an International Style ballroom dance. `'mikka (t) 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, the fact that I am (or anyone else) is an admin means nothing in wikipedia in discussing article contents. Please refresh your knowledge of who wikipedia:Administrators are and don't be intimidated :-) `'mikka (t) 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. These issues must be discussed Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance, which is *very* slow. I guess this is because dance lovers waste their spare time on dancing rather than on typing :-) `'mikka (t) 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion should be consolidated on the Wikiproject page here (where there's a pseudo-double of this discussion). It's an issue that affects many dances pages, let's pick it up there. --Will.i.am 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Cswrye. Well, it's a matter of style—that is, pick a source and go for the ride. Lindy Hop was indeed originally capitalized (both L & H), but now it often is not. Yet the "Lindbergh/proper name" thing is not crystal clear—dictionaries capitalizing both L & H in Lindy Hop (e.g. Merriam-Webster and OED) don't capitalize the R in Virginia reel, for example. Random House allows both lindy hop and Lindy Hop (in that order)—after all, it's not certain whether Lindy comes from Lindbergh or not. There's no compelling reason, however, to capitalize lindyhopper. I'm with Michael Richters on this one. Best, JackLumber. 12:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The OED headword is 'Lindy Hop', but the alternative spelling 'lindy-hop' is also given. The agentive noun is given as 'lindyhopper'. This should presumably not be taken as a prescriptive judgment on what is correct, but rather as a reflection of past practice in authoritative sources. If it was up to me (but NB I know nothing about dancing or dances!) I would put 'Lindy Hop' as the headword and "(also lindy-hop)" in the body of the article. How useless was that! Matve 09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After all of the discussion on the dance page, the end result was "go by local consensus". This page (L/lindy H/hop) currently has, I think, every incarnation of capitalization and decapitalization in its text, which should be changed to at least be consistent. Truthfully, I actually like Matve's comment above - list both words as caps in the title (and therefore all its mention in the text) and give an alternative uncapitalized version in the lead. This gives the page(s) consistency while telling the reader, "if you really care, you should probably consult your personal manual of style". Any comments?--Will.i.am 11:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to handle it to me. It also avoid going into a debate about whether or not "Lindy" is a proper noun. At this point, I think it just needs to be consistent throughout the article. —Cswrye 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

lindy hop as a 'partner' dance, a solo dance or both

IMHO, the section beginning "Lindy Hop can also be danced without a partner..." should be removed, but the links to the related dances/choreograpies should be preserved. Lindy Hop is, by definition, a partner dance. While the dances/choreographies mentioned in that paragraph are well-known in the Lindy Hop community, they are regarded as something different than Lindy itself. Nor are they exclusive to the Lindy community: Shim Sham, for example, is as well-known by tap dancers (albeit, in a slightly different form). - szarka

--69.107.130.204 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I beg to differ. I personally think lindy hop is not a partner dance by definition. it's a folk jazz dance by definition, containing partner moves and solo moves (such as charleston, etc...) and many others. Dancing solo can also be done in "partner" or within a group of people, preserving the folk framework. Dancing solo is a big part of lindy hop and other jazz dances (such as Salsa, where it's even a bigger part) and historical dances such as charleston (one of the ancestors of lindy) and blackbottom (many documented films of solo charleston, blackbottom and also many contests). people dance solo on the social dance floor all the time(using jazz and charleston moves), and it's not limited to doing the Leonard Reed's or Frankie's shim sham. in addition, there are many choreographed solo routines unique to lindy hop (al & leon shim sham is vastly different then the tap version, and shares only the name and first 8 bars (out of 40)) both historical and current. new routines are being made, performed and competed with every single day. there also many solo classes taught in lindy events, and the style of jazz dance they teach is different then jazz taught in dance studios, and is uniquely practiced and led by the lindy hop community. (events like Herrang, Camp Jitterbug, Rhtyhmic Arts festival, Ultimate Lindy Hop Showdown (the last two even have a solo contest). even in blues dance festivals they teach solo dancing)

-- PlainJane 09:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I have reworded the introductory pghs to combine both the idea that lindy hop is a partner dance, and that it also combines elements of solo dancing. Further detail should perhaps be added to the swing dancing book where there's more room for this sort of information. or a new article about 'solo dancing within the partner dance lindy hop' (or similar) could be begun.

---

Lindy hop is a partnered social dance. Nobody does a swingout without a partner. If you're dancing alone doing "lindy hop" you're really doing jazz steps and jazz dancing, *as 69.107.130.204 stated*. Al and Leon's Shim Sham is still a routine comprised of jazz steps. The style of jazz taught is different, but it's still jazz. Lindy hop is a Jazz dance. RAF and ULHS don't have solo lindy hop contests -- solo jazz, sure, solo lindy hop? Hellz no. ~ Shawn 17:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is a partner dance, but solo dance steps and dancing 'alone' are essential and absolutely important parts of the dance (in a historical sense particularly). The article as it stands takes these points into account. PlainJane 12:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerned member of the Lindy Hop Community

I have been a member of the Lindy Hop Community for 4 years now. I am the owner of iDance.net which is a for profit website that contains over 500 video clips of Lindy Hop and other swing dances. These clips are a very large resource to the dance community and is currently the largest archive of Lindy Hop moves recorded on video. The instructors featured on these clips are well know through out the world wide lindy hop community and some of them have learned lindy hop from greats such as Frankie Manning, so the material is historically authentic. I really don't understand and am greatly concerned over the removal of this link. Do I own the business? Yes. Is this a conflict of interest? Yes. Does it make it less correct? No. Please don't remove relavant external links. Thanks for reading this and please feel free to post your discussions as I am very open to talk about it.

PlainJaneDid you see the reference to the idance links issue higher up this talk page? I suggest you become a wikipedia user to lend your cause credibility. It would also be useful to have a third party endorse your links. However, links to the idance page would be more appropriate on the List of lindy hop moves page than on this lindy hop article. Having said that: welcome to wikipedia! Why not start by adding content to articles or perhaps by starting articles? I'm sure you have a great deal of interesting information about dance, websites, online clip collections, etc to share.

Just because a dancer learns steps from one of the originators of any dance forum does not automatically make it "historically accurate". As for Video Clips, Youtube.com is the greatest video resource. It not only has the original dancers, But also Competitions, and instructional video's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobarbreak (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A request

Can somebody work on improving the Savoy Ballroom page? Commentor (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1935

The only reference I could find for the Frankie Manning 1935 statement (see aerials article) does not contain this year. A more readable copy of the article can be found at this url [1]Steve Pastor (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Major editing of the lindy hop article

PlainJane 08:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC) I have started an article called Lindy Hop history which basically reproduces the section called 'lindy hop history' in this article, until just before the current era section. The 'history' section of this lindy hop article needs to be cut and replaced with a brief overview of lindy history and a link to the Lindy Hop history article. I plan to go on and do the same with the current era stuff, starting an article called Lindy Hop today as it seems the most obvious choice of name. This way we can talk less about 'lindy culture' in this article and provide a more succinct description of what lindy hop - the dance - is, keeping the article within the recommended article size. If you have any questions/recommendations/critiques, please let me know... I hope I haven't overstepped here.

PlainJane 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)I have deleted the sections from this lindy hop article and replaced them with a brief overview of the history of lindy hop.

PlainJane 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC) I have edited the 'social dancing, competition and performance' section, with an eye to moving it to a future article 'lindy hop today'. The following sections on lindy technique, musicality and so on need some serious editing and should probably be moved either to the swing dance wikibook, or to the 'lindy hop today' article as well, being replaced by a brief description of music, technique, etc.

A 'lindy hop today' article could expand on much of the stuff about lindy scenes and so on. It'd be nice to distinguish between historical lindy hop culture/technique etc and contemporary lindy hoppers' practices and culture.

PlainJane's suggestion of a "lindy hop today" article sounds like a very good one to me. One of the issues this might help with the verifiability problem: the "historical" stuff is, to the extent anyone agrees about it, verifiable from books and the like; writing about "lindy hop today" is much more in the realm of original research, and documenting contributions will be a challenge. For example: "As does the fact that most lindy hoppers come to the dance in the twenties or late teens..." I believe this is true, but how can anyone verify it? Szarka 12:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the history stuff is even harder to verify, as much of the material in books and articles is sketchy and most of the dancers from that era have died. It's a difficult issue... one that dogs any study of vernacular culture or oral history... PlainJane 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still thinking that this lindy hop article should be divided into two articles - lindy hop today and the basic 'lindy hop' article - as it's currently too long. All the stuff on lindy hop technique really isn't all that helpful (though a basic description of the dance itself - including the swingout - might be very useful. I'll try to get to it this week or next week. Though I might only be able to do the basic cutting and making and will almost certainly need to have stuff tidied (esp links, etc) if I don't get it all done. PlainJane 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's my opinion for now: When someone looks up lindy hop on Wikipedia, they should be able to learn basic information about all of its parts - lindy hop's basic history, how it's evolved, and how it persists today. (But I'm adverse to putting "lindy hop moves" into the main article, with an exception for a brief description of the swingout.) Readers can then proceed down a number of paths to find out more, e.g. main articles detailing the history of lindy hop, present day lindy hop, lindy hop moves, etc. So I'm not really in favor of a strict divide, but a comprehensive article about today's lindy mayhem that supports a more brief section in the lindy hop article sounds great.--Koeppen 03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

latest major reworking

I have produced the lindy hop today article, moving much of the material from the original lindy hop article there. We now have three main articles on lindy hop - lindy hop, lindy hop history and lindy hop today. There are many other articles which are directly related to these three (Savoy style lindy hop, Charleston (dance), swing dance, etc). I have been using the articles on African American stuff as a guide for my restructuring (they have some sweet articles over there).

I agree, Koeppen: "When someone looks up lindy hop on Wikipedia, they should be able to learn basic information about all of its parts - lindy hop's basic history, how it's evolved, and how it persists today". Hopefully, now that we have somewhere to put all the extraneous detail, we can work on the main 'lindy hop' article to produce something that does all that. Now that the other stuff has gone, it's really needing some tightening up.

Once again, all the stuff I've done today is kind of rough - I don't really have any more time to fuss about with finessing it. I am still crap with links. If you think I've done something heinous, please do revert. And of course, please do cut-and-paste to move stuff to more relevant sections. I'm still not happy with all the stuff on lindy technique in the lindy hop today article - perhaps we should create a 'lindy hop technique' page too? ;) It would be really nice to see the stuff on neo swing (the 'revivalist' era) fleshed out - it's a fascinating topic.... 'neo swing culture' perhaps? ;) PlainJane 06:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally, when an article has sub-articles, there is a short (one paragraph) summary of the sub-article on the parent article. The section usually begins with "See main article: (name of sub-article)". I'm not sure of the exact guidelines for that though. By the way, there is already an article on the Swing Revival, although it is in pretty poor shape in my opinion. Maybe that can be used to talk about the neo-swing era. --Cswrye 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:SUMMARY, It looks like the history in this article, and the lindy hop history article have forked quite a bit to contain different content. Instead, This article should contain a short summary of the information contained in the history article. I'll work to merge the history into a single article. -Verdatum (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute of Lindy Hop history in Marshall & Jean Stearn's book

I removed the following from a reference for the Stearn's book, contributed by 68.50.115.43 at 9 August 2007:

"Stearns, Marshall and Jean. Jazz Dance: The Story of American Vernacular Dance. 1968, Macmillan. New York. Note: The Stearns interviewed Al Minns and Leon James for their book. Parts of Minns and James account is vehemently disputed by Frankie Manning who accused the two of making things up without understanding the significance of what they were doing."

The fact that Frankie disputes their claims is in Frankie's autobiography but I'm not sure where that info should go since stating it in a reference about a reference doesn't seem like the right place. –panda 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The way this can be accomplished is by explicitly naming the source in the text (e.g. "According to X, <fact1>. However, this claim was disputed by Y, in his autobiography, The life of Y"). -Verdatum (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to do an interlibrary loan request for the Frankie Manning Story? Then we could present a referenced version of his story. Actually, you can see much of that book via Google books. Anyone???Steve Pastor (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the edition on Google Books, I believe the quote in question is, "...I don't know who made up what because everybody started creating air steps. My name got kind of lost in the shuffle and I never mentioned what I had done to anybody. Leon James and Al Minns probably didn't even know who started doing air steps, because Leon was in Europe at that time and Al hadn't joined the Lindy Hoppers yet. When Jazz Dance came out, I read that Al said he and some other dancers had come up with air steps. That's when I first had the though, Hey, wait a minute, I did that. I confronted Al about it later, and he admitted he didn't know who had done the first one." Manning, Frankie; Frankie Manning : ambassador of Lindy hop; Philadelphia; Temple University Press, 2007. p 102. Google Books.

But yeah, I believe it's sufficient to state that Manning disputed some of the claims of Minns and James. Then possibly paraphrase his evidence briefly, and most importantly, reference the above source. (To clarify, there's no need for the "Note: " prefix, and no need for interpretive words like "vehemently".) -Verdatum (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

History section edits

My edits were reverted, which isn't terribly surprising. I looked over the history very carefully. Most of the sourced content that I removed was quotations lifted from sources that are better expressed through paraphrasing. Exactly this has already been done in the history article.

The only content that was flat out not carried over was regarding the books in the 50s and 60s that covered lindy hop. Again, it was a set of quotations that should be paraphrased, but once they were paraphrased, they merely re-expressed the definition(s) of Lindy. Once that was removed the section became "this book published this year covered Lindy. This other book published this year covered lindy. This other book also covered lindy." Such information is not the history of lindy hop, instead merely a listing of sources that cover the topic. If a fact could be made like "In year x, the book y was first published, and is now considered by many experts to be the definitive treatise on the subject." or some similar substantial claim (properly sourced), then then sure it should go to the History page.

Again, by nature of having a WP:SPINOUT article on history of Lindy, the main page (here) should simply direct to that article and have a WP:SUMMARY of what will be found in that article (this is often most easily done by copying the lead section from the subarticle, which is what I chose to do). The idea is, if someone has valuable content to add to the topic, they shouldn't have to do so in two separate places, it's too easy to overlook, making both articles needlessly more difficult to maintain in an optimal state.

If you feel I did remove valuable content that is not covered in the history article (and that is certainly possible), please do either discuss it here, or just insert it into the history article directly. -Verdatum (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Check for Langston Hughes and Pittsburgh in the History article and you will see what I mean. Steve Pastor (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The value of the Langston Hughes quote is certainly open for debate. My question was whether his statement was an accurate description related to the history of Lindy Hop. I mean to say, was he accurately reporting what was going on, or what he sensationalizing the idea of showing off for the whites to highlight a social issue, it's an arguable fact as to the motivation of the dancers, and it's arguable whether or not they would have elevated to more and more flashy moves had the whites not been present. A firmer fact is that whites were indeed coming to The Savoy, and Harlem in general to see the dancing, which is indeed in the separate history article. The passage could also be reworded to say that Lindy Hop was evidently notable because it was being covered by the notable author. I thought about that, but I couldn't see how including it added to the article.

I regret to say, the Pittsburgh paragraph flat out made no sense to me. "A young, white middle class man from suburban Pittsburgh, PA learned to dance Lindy in 1939..." That's very good for him, but who is he? Does he have a name? Is he someone important? Why do we care about him? What does his personal opinion/observation that poor chicks could dance better have to do with the history of Lindy Hop? This sort of content may be nice humanizing content for a book on the subject, or maybe a Ken Burns type documentary, but without further context as to its significance, I fail to see how it belongs in an encyclopedia article on the subject.

Do you see any other content that you feel belongs in a good history of Lindy Hop? or other content that may not directly be on the history, and instead would benefit the article by being instead relocated to another section? I'm not trying to win any arguments here or anything, I'm just trying to make a good quality, informative article. -Verdatum (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Pittsburgh quote..I find it interesting because it sheds light on the social class aspect of dancing, and the fact that there were white dancers who recognized the differences in "style". This is always presented as a black/white street dancer/ballroom dancer dichotmy, and it turns out there is more to it than that. And, OK, I grew up in that area with those people (but in a slightly later time). I think it's completely appropriate to include material, such as this, (although perhaps in a different form) in an article that talks about "history", because it didn't end in Harlem, but spread across the country. I don't remember if the Stearns gave his name (and the book is back in the library).Steve Pastor (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Hughes, Snowden himself told people he got paid. I think I even quoted him (I think. I know where to find the material.) Although people believe Lindy was a "street dance", when dancers offer to teach lessons to make money, and get paid to dance, and have a bunch of people from other locations coming around to watch (and making money for the owner of the ballroom who is paying them to dance) you get quotes like the one from Hughes. Disagree with with him if you wish, but, yes, I think it's important to include both the facts and the impressions of the larger community of the time, and not finesse it to the point that it becomes meaningless, a storybook version, if I may. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And again, I really don't see the the purpose of shunting all of this off to another article. All of the gritty detail gets lost that way. You've read the accounts of uncool dancers being kicked in the shins if they were in the Cats Corner? How about the gang involvemets of the first generation of dancers? (I am not saying we need this here, but the Streans paint a much more complete picture. It's all in Jazz Dance.) Now, the "Lindy today" article, sure it belongs somewhere else. Again, one synonym for encyclopedic is "comphrehensive".Steve Pastor (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what i can do to edit the Pittsburgh information so it fits more of a topic-sentence form. Explaining that the dance began to spread beyond Harlem is perfectly appropriate, but information like this serves as an example in support of that claim, it isn't the claim itself. Otherwise, it would beg the question of why we don't include a mention of every out of towner who came in and learned the dance? This would, of course, be silly.

I agree, the fact that dancers were paid off is verifiable and certainly worth mentioning. I thought that claim was already was in the history article, but now I don't see it, I'll move that over. I can also probably move over a paraphrase of Hughes' other sentiments in some form or another.

The entire point of WP:SPINOUT articles is so that they may contain the more comprehensive information. I didn't drop the content because comprehensive information doesn't belong in the history article, I just didn't, at the time, feel it improved the understanding of the history. If the other history article didn't exist, I would have still tried to similarly compress or remove the content here which I felt to be superfluous to conveying the history. Despite the ability for a spinout article to cover a subtopic in greater detail, it is still important for content in an encyclopedia to be a collection of verifiable facts that are related to the associated topic, and add to the understanding of that topic.

The examples you mentioned above sound very interesting, and I suspect they do deserve a place somewhere on WP, though perhaps we could work on further reorganization in order to convey that sort of information. At a surface glance, there seems to be a separate topic to be found in the Lindy Hop culture, and history thereof. This is supported by the observation that much of the content in the Lindy Hop today article is about the culture, instead of the dance itself. Naturally, discussion on that sort of reorganization can come later.

Does this sound agreeable? -Verdatum (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading two paragraphs of the last edits, I see that there should be work done to increase the flow of the section. But, I am reluctant to do anything, because, in spite of the article being only 16kb in length, anything I contribute may be shuttled off to the "History" article. This is not a huge article, and I see no reason why History shouldn't be included here. Been meaning to add the "Merge" tag. Any takers? Steve Pastor (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

This article was originally located at Lindy Hop, with a concurrent version existing at Lindy hop (seemed to be various cut/paste moves, duel development possibly). The other version is located at Lindy hop (old version).--Commander Keane 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. It was originally located at "lindy hop", moved by cut and paste to "Lindy Hop", moved by cut and paste back to its original title, then moved once again to "Lindy Hop" using the page move feature. The linked "old version" contained some page history from 2002 and 2003. I've merged its edits into the article. Graham87 10:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Banned in Germany

According to Bobby White's research on the SwingJugend, jazz was never actually banned in Germany during WWII, nor was Lindy Hop specifically banned (all dancing was banned at some times/places). 9 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.185.199 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I did have, and put somewhere, referenced statements regarding that topic. But, I gave up on this article years ago because, you see, some stuff is 'History' and should be in another article. And, there is a fair amount of churning here, with little stability, which would require a group of editors devoted to this subject. Bobby has dome good stuff, but blogs aren't supposed to be used as reference, last time I looked. Steve Pastor (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)