text:
Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō

Ryūjō (龍驤 "Prancing Dragon") was a light aircraft carrier built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during the early 1930s. Small and lightly built in an attempt to exploit a loophole in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, she proved to be top-heavy and only marginally stable and was back in the shipyard for modifications to address those issues within a year of completion. With her stability improved, Ryūjō returned to service and was employed in operations during the Second Sino-Japanese War. During World War II, she provided air support for operations in the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies, where her aircraft participated in the Second Battle of the Java Sea. During the Indian Ocean raid in April 1942, the carrier attacked British merchant shipping with her guns and aircraft. Ryūjō next participated in the Battle of Dutch Harbor, the opening battle of the Aleutian Islands campaign, in June 1942. She was sunk by American carrier aircraft in the Battle of the Eastern Solomons on 24 August 1942.

Design
Ryūjō was planned as a light carrier of around 8000 t standard displacement to exploit a loophole in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 that carriers under 10000 LT standard displacement were not regarded as "aircraft carriers". While Ryūjō was under construction, Article Three of the London Naval Treaty of 1930 closed the above-mentioned loophole; consequently, Ryūjō was the only light aircraft carrier of her type to be completed by Japan.

Ryūjō had a length of 179.9 m overall. with a beam of 20.32 m and a draft of 5.56 m. She displaced 8000 t at standard load and 10150 t at normal load. Her crew consisted of 600 officers and enlisted men.

To keep Ryūjō's weight to 8,000 metric tons, the hull was lightly built with no armor; some protective plating was added abreast the machinery spaces and magazines. She was also designed with only a single hangar, which would have left an extremely low profile (there being just 4.6 m of freeboard amidships and 3.0 m aft). Between the time the carrier was laid down in 1929 and launched in 1931, the Navy doubled her aircraft stowage requirement to 48 in order to give her a more capable air group. This necessitated the addition of a second hangar atop the first, raising freeboard to 14.9 m. Coupled with the ship's narrow beam, the consequent top-heaviness made her minimally stable in rough seas, despite the fitting of Sperry active stabilizers. This was a common flaw amongst many treaty-circumventing Japanese warships of her generation.

The Tomozuru Incident of 12 March 1934, in which a top-heavy torpedo boat capsized in heavy weather, caused the IJN to investigate the stability of all their ships, resulting in design changes to improve stability and increase hull strength. Ryūjō, already known to be only marginally stable, was promptly docked at the Kure Naval Arsenal for modifications that strengthened her keel and added ballast and shallow torpedo bulges to improve her stability. Her funnels were moved higher up the side of her hull and curved downward to keep the deck clear of smoke.

Shortly afterward, Ryūjō was one of many Japanese warships caught in a typhoon on 25 September 1935 while on maneuvers during the "Fourth Fleet Incident." The ship's bridge, flight deck and superstructure were damaged and the hangar was flooded. The forecastle was raised one deck and the bow was remodelled with more flare to improve the sea handling. After these modifications, the beam and draft increased to 20.78 m and 7.08 m respectively. The displacement also increased to 10600 t at standard load and 12732 t at normal load. The crew also grew to 924 officers and enlisted men.

Machinery
The ship was fitted with two geared steam turbine sets with a total of 65000 shp, each driving one propeller shaft, using steam provided by six Kampon water-tube boilers. Ryūjō had a designed speed of 29 kn, but reached 29.5 kn during her sea trials from 65270 shp. The ship carried 2490 LT of fuel oil, which gave her a range of 10000 nmi at 14 kn. The boiler uptakes were trunked to the ship's starboard side amidships and exhausted horizontally below flight deck level through two small funnels.

Flight deck and hangars
Ryūjō was a flush-decked carrier without an island superstructure; the navigating and control bridge was located just under the forward lip of the flight deck in a long glassed-in "greenhouse", whilst the superstructure was set back 23.5 m from the ship's stem, giving Ryūjō a distinctive open bow. The 156.5 m flight deck was 23 m wide and extended well beyond the aft end of the superstructure, supported by a pair of pillars. Six transverse arrestor wires were installed on the flight deck and were modernised in 1936 to stop a 6000 kg aircraft. The ship's hangars were both 102.4 m long and 18.9 m wide, and had an approximate area of 3871 sqm. Between them, they gave the ship the capacity to store 48 aircraft, but only 37 could be operated at one time. After the Fourth Fleet incident, Ryūjō's bridge and the leading edge of the flight deck were rounded off to make them more streamlined. This reduced the length of the flight deck by 2 m.

Aircraft were transported between the hangars and the flight deck by two elevators; the forward platform measured 15.7 x and the rear 10.8 x. The small rear elevator became a problem as the IJN progressively fielded larger and more modern carrier aircraft. Of all the aircraft in front-line service in 1941, only the Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo bomber would fit, when positioned at an angle with its wings folded. This effectively made Ryūjō a single-elevator carrier and considerably hindered transfer of aircraft in and out of the hangars for rearming and refueling during combat operations.

Armament
As completed, Ryūjō's primary anti-aircraft (AA) armament comprised six twin-gun mounts equipped with 40-caliber 12.7-centimeter Type 89 dual-purpose guns mounted on projecting sponsons, three on either side of the carrier's hull. When firing at surface targets, the guns had a range of 14700 m; they had a maximum ceiling of 9440 m at their maximum elevation of +90 degrees. Their maximum rate of fire was 14 rounds a minute, but their sustained rate of fire was around eight rounds per minute. Twenty-four anti-aircraft (AA) Type 93 13.2 mm Hotchkiss machine guns were also fitted, in twin and quadruple mounts. Their effective range against aircraft was 700 - 1500 m. The cyclic rate was adjustable between 425 and 475 rounds per minute, but the need to change 30-round magazines reduced the effective rate to 250 rounds per minute.

During the carrier's 1934–1936 refit, two of the 12.7 cm mountings were exchanged for two twin-gun mounts for license-built Hotchkiss 25 mm Type 96 light AA guns, resulting in a reduction of approximately 60 LT of top-weight that improved the ship's overall stability. This was the standard Japanese light AA gun during World War II, but it suffered from severe design shortcomings that rendered it a largely ineffective weapon. According to historian Mark Stille, the weapon had many faults including an inability to "handle high-speed targets because it could not be trained or elevated fast enough by either hand or power, its sights were inadequate for high-speed targets, [and] it possessed excessive vibration and muzzle blast." These 25 mm guns had an effective range of 1500 - 3000 m, and an effective ceiling of 5500 m at an elevation of +85 degrees. The maximum effective rate of fire was only between 110 and 120 rounds per minute because of the need to frequently change the fifteen-round magazines. The machine guns were replaced during a brief refit in April–May 1942 with six triple-mount 25 mm AA guns.

Construction and service
Following the Japanese ship-naming conventions for aircraft carriers, Ryūjō was named "Prancing Dragon". The ship was laid down at the Mitsubishi's Yokohama shipyard on 26 November 1929. She was launched on 2 April 1931, towed to Yokosuka Naval Arsenal on 25 April for fitting out, and commissioned on 9 May 1933 with Captain Toshio Matsunaga in command. While training in mid-1933, her initial air group consisted of nine Mitsubishi B1M2 (Type 13) torpedo bombers, plus three spares, and three A1N1 (Type 3) fighters, plus two spares. Matsunaga was relieved by Captain Torao Kuwabara on 20 October. After the Tomozuru Incident, the ship was reconstructed from 26 May to 20 August 1934.

Captain Ichiro Ono assumed command on 15 November 1934 and Ryūjō became the flagship of Rear Admiral Hideho Wada's First Carrier Division. The following month the ship was chosen to evaluate dive-bombing tactics using six Nakajima E4N2-C Type 90 reconnaissance aircraft, six Yokosuka B3Y1 Type 92 torpedo bombers, and a dozen A2N1 Type 90 fighters. The reconnaissance aircraft proved to be unsuitable after several months' testing. Ryūjō participated in the Combined Fleet Maneuvers of 1935 where she was attached to the IJN Fourth Fleet. The fleet was caught in a typhoon on 25 September and the ship was moderately damaged. Ryūjō arrived at Kure on 11 October 1935 for repairs, modifications, and a refit that lasted until 31 May 1936. On 31 October Ono was relieved by Captain Shun'ichi Kira.

In mid-1936, the ship was used to evaluate a dozen Aichi D1A dive bombers and dive-bombing tactics. She also embarked at that time 24 A4N1 fighters, plus four and eight spare aircraft respectively. In September, Ryūjō resumed her role as flagship of First Carrier Division, now commanded by Rear Admiral Saburō Satō. Her air group now consisted of a mixture of B3Y1 torpedo bombers, D1A1 dive bombers and A2N fighters, but her torpedo bombers were transferred after fleet maneuvers in October demonstrated effective dive bombing tactics. Captain Katsuo Abe assumed command of the ship on 16 November.

The First Carrier Division arrived off Shanghai on 13 August 1937 to support operations of the Japanese Army in China. Her aircraft complement consisted of 12 A4N fighters (plus four spares) and 15 D1A dive bombers. The dive bombers attacked targets in and near Shanghai. The Japanese fighters had their first aerial engagement on 22 August when four A4Ns surprised 18 Nationalist Curtiss Hawk III fighters and claimed to have shot down six without loss. The following day, four A4Ns claimed to have shot down nine Chinese fighters without loss to themselves. The carriers returned to Sasebo at the beginning of September to resupply before arriving off the South China coast on 21 September to attack Chinese forces near Canton. Nine fighters from Ryūjō escorted a raid on the city and claimed six of the defending fighters. While escorting another raid later that day, the Japanese pilots claimed five aircraft shot down and one probably shot down. The dive bombers attacked targets near Canton until the ship sailed to the Shanghai area on 3 October. Her air group was flown ashore on 6 October to support Japanese forces near Shanghai and Nanking. Ryūjō returned home in November and briefly became a training ship before she was assigned to Rear Admiral Tomoshige Samejima's Second Carrier Division.

In February 1938 the ship replaced her A4N biplanes with nine Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" monoplane fighters. The division supported Japanese operations in Southern China in March–April and again in October. Captain Kiichi Hasegawa assumed command on 15 November 1939. Ryūjō was given a refit that lasted from December 1939 through January 1940 and became a training ship until November when she became the flagship of Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's Third Carrier Division. Hasegawa was relieved by Captain Ushie Sugimoto on 21 June. The ship's air group then consisted of 18 Nakajima B5N torpedo bombers and 16 A5M4 fighters. When the First Air Fleet was formed on 10 April 1941, Ryūjō became flagship of the Fourth Carrier Division.

World War II
The ship's assignment at the beginning of the Pacific War was to support the invasion of the Philippines, initially by attacking the American naval base at Davao, Mindanao, on the morning of 8 December. Her air group had not changed, but four of each type of aircraft were spares. Ryūjō's initial airstrike consisted of 13 B5Ns escorted by nine A5Ms with a smaller airstrike later in the day by two B5Ns and three A5Ms. They accomplished little, destroying two Consolidated PBY seaplanes on the ground for the loss of one B5N and one A5M. The ship covered the landing at Davao on 20 December and her B5Ns attacked a British oil tanker south of Davao. In January 1942 her aircraft supported Japanese operations in the Malay Peninsula.

In mid-February 1942, Ryūjō's aircraft attacked ships evacuating from Singapore, claiming eight ships damaged, three burnt, and four sunk. They also covered convoys carrying troops to Sumatra. The ship was unsuccessfully attacked by several Bristol Blenheim light bombers of No. 84 Squadron RAF on 14 February. The following day two waves of B5Ns, totaling 13 aircraft, attacked the British heavy cruiser HMS Exeter (68), but managed only to damage the ship's Supermarine Walrus seaplane. Follow-on attacks the same day were also unsuccessful. Two days later, B5Ns destroyed HNLMS Van Ghent (1926), a Dutch destroyer that had run aground in the Gaspar Strait and been abandoned on 14 February. The carrier sailed to Saigon, French Indochina, the next day and arrived on 20 February. A week later she was assigned to cover the convoy taking troops to Jakarta, Java. Her aircraft participated in the Second Battle of the Java Sea on 1 March and six B5Ns sank the American destroyer USS Pope (DD-225) after it had been abandoned by its crew. Six other B5Ns bombed the port of Semarang, possibly setting one merchantman on fire.

Ryūjō arrived in Singapore on 5 March and the ship supported operations in Sumatra and escorted convoys to Burma and the Andaman Islands for the rest of the month. On 1 April, while the 1st Air Fleet was starting its raid in the Indian Ocean, Malay Force, consisting of Ryūjō, six cruisers, and four destroyers, left Burma on a mission to destroy merchant shipping in the Bay of Bengal. B5Ns damaged one freighter on 5 April before the force split into three groups. Ryūjō's aircraft bombed the small ports of Cocanada and Vizagapatam on the southeastern coast of India the next day, doing little damage, in addition to claiming two ships sunk and six more damaged during the day. The carrier and her escorts, the light cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Yura and the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Yūgiri, claimed to have sunk three more ships by gunfire. All together, Malay Force sank 19 ships totaling almost, before reuniting on 7 April and arriving at Singapore on 11 April. A week later, her B5Ns were detached for torpedo training and the ship arrived at Kure on 23 April for a brief refit.

The newly commissioned carrier JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Jun'yō joined Carrier Division 4, under the command of Kakuta, with Ryūjō on 3 May 1942. They formed the core of the 2nd Carrier Strike Force, part of the Northern Force, tasked to attack the Aleutian Islands, an operation planned to seize several of the islands to provide advance warning in case of an American attack from the Aleutians down the Kurile Islands while the main body of the American fleet was occupied defending Midway. Ryūjō's air group now consisted of 12 A6M2 Zeros and 18 B5Ns, plus two spares of each type. The ship transferred to Mutsu Bay on 25 May and then to Paramushiro on 1 June before departing the same day for the Aleutians.

At dawn on 3 June, she launched 9 B5Ns, escorted by 6 Zeros, to attack Dutch Harbor on Unalaska Island. One B5N crashed on takeoff but 6 of the B5Ns and all of the Zeros were able to make it through the bad weather, destroying two PBYs and inflicting significant damage on the oil storage tanks and barracks. A second airstrike was launched later in the day to attack a group of destroyers discovered by aircraft from the first attack, but they failed to find the targets. One Zero from Ryūjō from the second strike was damaged by a Curtiss P-40 and crash landed on the island of Akutan. The aircraft, later dubbed the Akutan Zero, remained largely intact and was later salvaged by the U.S. Navy and test flown. On the following day, the two carriers launched another airstrike, consisting of 15 Zeros, 11 D3As, and 6 B5Ns, which successfully bombed Dutch Harbor. Shortly after the aircraft were launched, the Americans attacked the carriers, but failed to inflict any damage. A Martin B-26 Marauder bomber and a PBY were shot down by Zeros, and a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bomber was shot down by flak during the attack.

Ryūjō arrived back at Mutsu Bay on 24 June, and departed for the Aleutians four days later to cover the second reinforcement convoy to Attu and Kiska Islands and remained in the area until 7 July in case of an American counterattack. She arrived at Kure on 13 July for a refit and was transferred to Carrier Division 2 a day later.

Battle of the Eastern Solomons

The American landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi on 7 August caught the Japanese by surprise. The next day, Ryūjō was transferred to Carrier Division 1 and departed for Truk on 16 August together with the other two carriers of the division, JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Shōkaku and JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Zuikaku. Her air group consisted of 24 Zeros and nine B5N2s. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Combined Fleet, ordered Truk to be bypassed and the fleet refueled at sea after an American carrier was spotted near the Solomon Islands on 21 August. At 01:45 on 24 August, Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo, commander of the Mobile Force, ordered Ryūjō and the heavy cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Tone, escorted by two destroyers, detached to move in advance of the troop convoy bound for Guadalcanal and to attack the Allied air base at Henderson Field if no carriers were spotted. This Detached Force was commanded by Rear Admiral Chūichi Hara in Tone.

Ryūjō launched two small airstrikes, totaling 6 B5Ns and 15 Zeros, beginning at 12:20 once the Diversionary Force was 200 nmi north of Lunga Point. Four Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters from Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-223 on combat air patrol (CAP) near Henderson Field spotted the incoming Japanese aircraft around 14:20 and alerted the defenders. Ten more Wildcats from VMF-223 and VMF-212 scrambled, as well as 2 United States Army Air Corps Bell P-400s from the 67th Fighter Squadron in response. Nine of the Zeros strafed the airfield while the B5Ns bombed it with 60 kg bombs to little effect. The Americans claimed to have shot down 19 aircraft, but only three Zeros and three B5Ns were lost, with another B5N forced to crash-land. Only three Wildcats were shot down in turn.

Around 14:40, the Detached Force was spotted again by several search aircraft from the carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6); the Japanese ships did not immediately spot the Americans. They launched three Zeros for a combat air patrol at 14:55, three minutes before two of the searching Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bombers narrowly missed Ryūjō 150 m astern with four 500 lb bombs. Two more Zeros reinforced the patrol shortly after 15:00, just in time to intercept two more searching Avengers, shooting down one. In the meantime, the carrier USS Saratoga (CV-3) had launched an airstrike against the Detached Force in the early afternoon that consisted of 31 Douglas SBD Dauntlesses and eight Avengers; the long range precluded fighter escort. They found the carrier shortly afterward and attacked. They hit Ryūjō three times with 1000 lb bombs and one torpedo; the torpedo hit flooded the starboard engine and boiler rooms. No aircraft from either Ryūjō or Saratoga were shot down in the attack.

The bomb hits set the carrier on fire and she took on a list from the flooding caused by the torpedo hit. Ryūjō turned north at 14:08, but her list continued to increase even after the fires were put out. The progressive flooding disabled her machinery and caused her to stop at 14:20. The order to abandon ship was given at 15:15 and the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Amatsukaze moved alongside to rescue the crew. The ships were bombed several times by multiple B-17s without effect before Ryūjō capsized about 17:55 at coordinates -6.16667°N, 160.83333°W with the loss of seven officers and 113 crewmen. Fourteen aircraft that she had dispatched on raids returned shortly after Ryūjō sank and circled over the force until they were forced to ditch. Seven pilots were rescued.

title: Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō


text:
Talk:Vaganova method/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It needs some work, for sure. Added tag. — E ditor at L arge  ( speak )  23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Definition of "Vaganova method"
The lead sentence says

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ballet Technique ≠ Training System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A leaf is a book page and a biological appendage.

A leaf is a book page and biological appendage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-posted from the Ballet talk page, Dance terminology section
The danger here lies in the creation of false distinctions in the name of consistency. Claude Bessy was in NY last month for the Dance Films Association festival at Lincoln Center. Opening night was a film about her (which the estimable Fabrice Herrault worked on for four and a half years!)

Mlle. Bessy ran the Paris Opera Ballet School for thirty years, and one of the questions posed her after the screening had to do with its curriculum. Her reply was that they taught mostly French technique but also Cecchetti method.

What is method at one school may well be technique at the next and style at a third, and a school may teach different aspects of dance variously as style (more likely at the upper levels), technique and/or method. The concepts are every bit as inextricable when talking about choreographers or dance companies and ever moreso when dealing with contemporary dance.

This is not to say that there is not a good deal of unclear writing to be found in ballet (and dance) articles, much of it well-intentioned. Making distinctions between method, technique, and style would need to be done on a case-by-case basis and would need to be done by a person who had studied at the school or danced with the company in question.

The Wikipedia community is fond of guidelines and — and sometimes follows them to the point of foolish consistency. To promulgate across-the-board distinctions that working dancers do not observe between concepts that working dancers do not necessarily accept would be folly, if not worse. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Vaganova method/Archive 1


text:
User talk:Dracil

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:38, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dracil