Talk:Samba (ballroom dance)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles

WikiProject Dance To-do list:

To nominate at WP:FAC:
To improve to Featured standard:
To nominate as a Good article:
To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance
To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow
To unbias:
To check for copyvios:
To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion
Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs
To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more
Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine
To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more
Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images

Old talk[edit]

I removed the WikiProject Brazil tag, as the ballroom samba dance has little to nothing to do with Brazil, as is highlighted in the article.

Untitled[edit]

i love the samba.... thank you for the information.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.11.34 (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.imperial.dance/samba. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the content was copied from the website in question. I copied this piece of text fromm elsewhere in wikipedia as ear;ly as in 2006.. You have to be careful throwing around copyvio accusations without proof. Quite often various websites shatxh wikipedia text without any attribution. At the very least you have to prove that this text on other website predate 2006. - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The website in quextion says it was established in 2011. You really have to unterstand the concept of due diligence. - Altenmann >talk 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for causing offense, but I followed the instructions at the page for "copyright concerns" for how to handle the situation when you have a concern that there might be a copyright issue, not when there definitely is one. I don't think it was an unreasonable concern, since it wasn't based solely off the two pages having the same text, as less than four hours earlier you asserted that that very webpage you have now clarified consists entirely of text that was copied from a Wikipedia article was a reliable source. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that an experienced editor who had done their due diligence when restoring a source whose reliability was in question checked said source before doing that and wouldn't simply assert that the website of some local dance studio that copies the entire text of one of their pages from a Wikipedia article was a reliable source, after all. A new editor might not know that such a page was a bad source, but an experienced editor surely would. For what it's worth, thank you for removing the source in question from the article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]