Talk:Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing

message: In a similar vein to the previsous comment on this page, I have to entirely concur.
As a qualified dance teacher with the RAD, IDTA and ISTD, I think it is very important to point out that this article did indeed appear very biased in suggesting that the ISTD is in some way superior, which is far from the truth.  To counteract this, I have now completely re-written the article to try and provide a more balanced and factual reference about the ISTD.  Some assistance in making the new text more Wikipedia friendly would be much appreciated as I have very little knowledge of how to correctly reference back to source materials.
For the benefit of anyone who has any concerns about my revision of the article, I have to point out that the original text was wildly inaccurate, for the following resons.
Whilst indeed being an internationally recognised organisation, there is in fact no official evidence to support the organisations status.  It does indeed have numerous branches throughout the world, but its success and status outside of the UK is very debatable.
Also the original text was worded in such a way as to suggest that the ISTD is in some way larger or superior to other dance organisations.  Again, wildly inaccurate.  The largest of the UK based dance organisations is the RAD (Royal Academy of Dance), hence it's Royal Charter.  Focussing primarily on the study of classical ballet, free movement and related dance subjects, the RAD has branches in over 50 countries worldwide.  There is also evidence to support a claim from the IDTA (International Dance Teachers Organisation), that they do in fact conduct more examinations in a greater number of dance styles, worldwide, than any other UK based organisation and since 'joining forces' with the RAD in mutually recognising each others qualifications, the RAD and IDTA have now firmly cemented their status as two of the most successful dance examination boards in the world.
I am writing this here as opposed to the article its-self as this is purely my own research.  No doubt, there will be a supporter of the ISTD out there who would claim that what I ahve said here is incorrect, but will provide references and facts and figures to support this at a later date and wil add this into the article.  In doing this, I also intend to provide much more information about other hugely successful dance organisations.
:Relax. No one says anything against. By the style and policies in wikipedia the words like "leading" etc. are routinely deleted. It is just no one was really interested in fixing the style of this article. `'Mїkka 20:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: CrazyDancing, per edit summary in this your edit, please restore information you deleted into some other place of the article. - Altenmann >t 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - am going to do some more work on the article, then refer it back to the person who originally made those edits, as they can then expand on that information further. Crazy-dancing (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit of CrazyDancing 

message: I have some serious issues about the supposed neutrality of this whole article. As a  former Fellow (FISTD) of the society, any article about the ISTD that doe not contain any reference to Alex Moore (dancer) author, and longtime Chairman of the Board of Examiners for the Ballroom Branch is seriously flawed and may reflect serious prejudices by the authors!!  Also there is no mention of the historically important Cyril Beaumont (Chairman of Ballroom Branch Council, and its Secretary, Peter Pearson. Cathlec (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanlon razor, please. Who prevents you from adding this information into "Notable people" section? - üser:Altenmann >t 05:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral??