Jump to content

Talk:Ceroc

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

Take-overs?

[edit]

Why's this section been removed? Please comment changes in future, so we can track this article and the reasons for revisions. In the meantime, absent a documented reason for its removal, I've restored it David James Bailey (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bias?

[edit]

This article should be less biased. It contains phrases like "the fantastic thing about Ceroc...". It reads like an advert from the company.

Agreed. Product of commerce or fandom, no doubt. I removed this:
There is still an obvious opposition to non-qualified people trying to circulate dance moves where their complexity could be dangerous (if not professionally taught). One of the fantastic things about Ceroc Enterprises as an organisation is the uniformity of the safety standards set solidly in the minds of its instructors, and moves that have not been risk-assessed and properly documented and taught in a safe manner simply are not acceptable.
I'm unclear what this means. I've seen classes taught by Ceroc franchises described as unsafe, so this is not NPOV. I'm thinking it's trying to make some point about Ceroc Ltd being good and holy and its competitors being dangerous cowboys, but it's not entirely clear what's being said. So, removing. I also removed this:
There is also a large unofficial following at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California.
If it's unofficial, it can't be Ceroc, due to the nature of trademarks and such. It'd have to be Modern Jive. Finally, I trimmed the list of franchises. Ceroc.com should remain, as the homepage of Ceroc Enterprises. I've also kept the C&MJ link, because I believe that is technically a seperate company, rather than merely a franchise. The rest I've removed. Here they are:
Finally, I re-added this titbit of info:
Ceroc took steps to avoid the circulation of secondary material (such as dancer produced lists of moves or move sequence).
Rumour has it that these steps included the use of NDA-type warning on the membership agreement. Can't be 100% sure that's true.

Ceroc Enterprises?

[edit]

The whole "history of Ceroc" stuff is both bloated and irrelevant; it reads like a press release. I suggest either zapping it, or moving it to a separate "Ceroc Enterprises" page - so you'd have two pages, something like "Ceroc (Dance)" and "Ceroc (Organisation)".

Possibly a disambiguation page would be useful, as well. David James Bailey (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. This page seems to be largely promoting a commercial organisation. The key question I think here is:

Did 'Ceroc Enterprises' really create, and therefore 'own' (as they seem to regularly claim) the dance style which they teach? In other words, is the dance style taught by them genuinely called 'Ceroc'. Or is 'Ceroc' really just a business name, and the dance style something else? If the latter, then this page is utterly bogus and thoroughly misleading! If anyone seriously believes that 'Ceroc Enterprises' actually OWNS the dance style (which, coincidentally, has the same name as the organisation!), then why are they not pursuing the countless other organisations that also teach the same exact style? (e.g. Leroc, Jive Plus, Rocsters, ... to name a few ....)

Surely, if you subscribe to the view that they 'own' the dance style, then it must be the case that their 'intellectual property' is being widely stolen. Are they really allowing this to go on unchallenged?

Etonian63 (dancer of many styles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etonian63 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to Ceroc

[edit]

Will the person who keeps vandalising this article please desist.

The relation between "Ceroc" and "Modern Jive" is clearly explained in the 5th paragraph, and is an accepted fact.

If proof can be provided that the term "Modern Jive" was used before "Ceroc", then the is a case to change the entry. However, no-one has claimed this to be the case, let alone been able to prove it. Therefore edit's that claim that Ceroc is not a dance form are political opinion and not helpful.

Further incidents of editing will be reported as Vandalism.

-- unsigned comment


The above unsigned comments are unsigned and traceable only to an IP address. If you are serious about having your voice heard and participating in Wikipedia I strongly urge to to create yourself an account. If you have a personal stake in this (or are associated with a franchice or Trademark holder), identifying yourself would also help.
Please don't remove the content of talk pages.
When they say "is an accepted fact" I would like to see an independent reference of that.
Somewhere in all this revision the list of internation Ceroc groups has also vanished.
I would welcome a report of Vandalism. I've been a Ceroc dancer in several countries and would like to see this improved. Stuartyeates 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the onus back to you and ask that you give any diffinitive proof that the term "Modern Jive" was in use in the way you claim before 1980 (i.e. when term "Ceroc" was first coined - and of which there is absolute proof in many printed articles in the media). Indeed, any evidence to prove that the term "Modern Jive" existed before 1990 (when Robert Austin coined the phrase) would also be of interest.
-- unsigned comment

Lookups in the OED

[edit]

I've just looked up in the online OED and neither Ceroc nor Modern Jive is listed. Jive, of course, goes back to the 1920s.

--Stuartyeates 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-competition

[edit]

I'd like some discussion to be added regarding the anti-competitive activities of Ceroc Ent. One source is here on ceroc.com [1]

This shows that dancers taking lessons from Ceroc are:

  • forbidden from teaching Modern Jive (under any name) for 24 months
  • forbidden from mentioning any dance class (of any style) to Ceroc members, even outside of Ceroc events.
  • forbidden from passing on anything they have learnt within a Ceroc class in any way

It all sounds barmy and unenforcable to me, but I think it's important to mention in a balanced article on Ceroc Ent. --some dancer

Original Research, or...?

[edit]

I was tempted to go over this URL: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ceroc.com

and make a chart showing the expansion of Ceroc Enterprises in the UK in terms of dancers and franchisees. Could be classed as original research, but I don't think it's wildly unreasonable. What do folks think? Martin 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grips about the politics of Ceroc Enterprises really have no place on Wiki, and certainly not on the Ceroc entry. I have created a seperate "Ceroc Enterprises" entry, where political history can be documented. (Please keep it factual, not based on "hearsay", and not biased towards or against Ceroc Enterprises.

Hang on: you're removing descriptions of Ceroc given by Ceroc enterprises. I don't see how that can be described as "hearsay". Martin 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made:
restore intro - it's a cited description of Ceroc given by Ceroc Enterprises, which independants would agree with - how is that political?
re-add ref for ideal tempo
re-add ref for use of the phrase "modern jive" to describe Ceroc, as done by Ceroc Enterprises
By the way, it appears that you reverted all of my pages solely over objections to the intro. Please don't do that.
Martin 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French origin

[edit]

Does anyone know what the relationship between ceroc and the "rock" danced in France is? The article is vague on this point. Is this an import? An new dance inspired by French "rock"? -anon

It's a new dance heavily inspired by French rock 'n' roll dancers. From reports by folks who've been there, French rock is different in that it is slotted and danced to faster music. Martin 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

styles of Ceroc

[edit]
Some styles may concentrate on particular musical styles, such as swing.

This was marked as citation needed and I removed it. I'm not sure what this statement is getting at. Can it be reworded (and, yeah, cited). Martin

James Cronin learnt the french style Le roc or termed as c'est le rocbut but created the franchise ceroc in the uk. He also attended some classes in London (leroc) taught by a french teacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.170.214 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for rewrite by impartial source

[edit]

Wiki editors should focus on the intent of this article, not just the "letter of the law". All of the External Links and Further Reading are from Conflict of Interest sources. Most of the references are, as well. Two of the References links are broken, leaving the article mostly self-advertising.

Other editors have, quite properly, asked for citations for phrases such as "makes it more accessible to beginners" and "males are less comfortable engaging in a partner dance with a member of the same sex than females are". The larger point, however, is being avoided or missed, which is that the article is largely comprised of unsubstantiated marketing material.

What's at issue here is a commercial concern subverting Wikipedia for its own ends.

24.130.9.210 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue around "males are less comfortable engaging in a partner dance with a member of the same sex than females are" and similar comments are a standard reality of all partner dances, and not specific to Ceroc. Regrettably, Wikipedia's entry on partner dance doesn't have any references either. I've asked for citations there. Meanwhile, I've removed the comments on this article, because they're not a distinguishing feature of Ceroc Enterprises dances, or even of Modern Jive.
I've also added copious references, for your pleasure. These are largely from Ceroc Enterprises for now. Of course, Wikipedia:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_about_themselves, so the article shouldn't be based largely on that, so sure, someone should go through and replace those references with third party ones, which will then become dead links in a few years time, and we can go through the cycle again. Martin (talk)

Ceroc= organisation Modern Jive =form of dance

[edit]

I have no wish to edit this page, even though i have the right to. I would ,however, like to point out, to all, that search the term "Ceroc" that, this article ,has been written by the organisation called "Ceroc" in a clear attempt to mislead the reader. "Ceroc" is not a dance form, the form of dance to which we refer is called "Modern Jive" this term ,is generally agreed to be a more accurate name, than merely calling it "jive" The Trader called "Ceroc" makes minor mention of this fact, much later in this article....Dancermoz (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't attempt to rewrite this article personally as I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but perhaps this need some kind of vote. I expected to see Modern Jive at least linked in the lead paragraph. I assume good faith on the part of the editors, but article needs attention, perhaps Template:Advert flag in the interim? — Lee A. Christie (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at it again, perhaps the article could be immediately improved by dropping the first paragraph or switching it with the 2nd paragraph, so the article begins with paragraph 2 - i.e. "'Ceroc' is the brand name of the leading franchise of the dance, which is also known as 'Modern Jive' ... "? (maybe with slight tweaking to the wording) — Lee A. Christie (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceroc monopoly - please DO NOT allow this to also happen on Wikipedia

[edit]

I have been jiving since 2003 and I am concerned by the attempted suppression of competition by Ceroc. A monopoly of any kind is bad news, and quickly produces complacency and falling standards .

There are a number of smaller ( often one-person-band) concerns equally good ... ( sometimes better than ..) Ceroc in providing an enjoyable nights jiving .

Unfortunately any criticism ( hopefully constructive ) of ceroc gains an almost hysterical reaction with threats of exclusion designed to silence anyone who dares to express what should be obvious .

Please do not allow this to happen on Wiki . Creation of a page that implies that the only way to jive is the ceroc way is misleading and incorrect.

Jiving Bear 20.02.2013--11:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Jiving Bear (talk)

Wording on Cerocshop levels.

[edit]

I was updating the reference for the Cerocshops to the new website and noticed the wording on that part of the article is worded misleadingly. - "The standard Ceroc workshops are graded (Beginners 1, Beginners 2, Beginners Plus, Intermediate 1, Intermediate 2, and Intermediate Plus)" implies beginners 1+2 are two separate levels and Int 1+2 are two separate levels. Not sure, but as I understand, beginners 1 and beginners 2 are the same level of workshop with different subset of the moves covered, and likewise for intermediate 1 and intermediate 2. I've left the wording alone though for discussion. — Lee A. Christie (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instances of original research?

[edit]

Article seems to have several things which seem like original research even if they are accurate and not misleading. Example: The Beginners routine taught on any given day is the same across all teachers and all venues. This is intended to allow beginners to practice what they have learned with beginners from other venues.[citation needed] This is probably correct, but I can't see it mentioned anywhere in the Ceroc websites/FAQs. It sounds like this sort of thing that could have been added by teacher/franchisee. There are many more statements like this in the article. — Lee A. Christie (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove promotional language and merge with Modern Jive

[edit]

Ceroc is a brand of Modern Jive and this article, clearly written by and to promote the company (much of the wording is identical to that on the Ceroc Website).

This article should be cleaned of promotional language (in the way that others have noted) and merged with Modern Jive.

Stuartyeates noted the lack of Modern Jive in the OED. I believe this is due to the various companies that operate Modern Jive events wanting to claim ownership of it (evidenced by this article) by referring to it as their brand (e.g. Ceroc). Also, the term is used only by a small percentage of the population and not something that has received academic attention.

I would also like to note that, while related, Modern Jive is as distinct Jive (dance) as Rock and roll is from Gospel music. It would not be correct to incorporate Modern Jive as a subset of the Jive (dance) article.

It would be improper of me to make these changes as I work for Ceroc.

Request Edits are for suggesting specific edits. I suggest following the instructions for proposing a merger. Once there is agreement to merge the articles, you could offer an alternate draft of the current that would be trimmed down and less promotional and then merge that draft to the other article. This would involve a pretty substantial time commitment on your part. However, Request Edit isn't really setup for that kind of work. CorporateM (Talk) 07:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ceroc. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 04:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ceroc. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ceroc. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ceroc&oldid=1244005381"