Talk:Urban Dance Squad
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutrality edit
I don't know very much about this band, but the article seems too "fan-based" and not neutral.--Palindrome7 17:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There is way too much POV in the article. BreakerLOLZ 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. But: please listen to my arguments for keeping the text as it is. Being a music fan, I read about music as much as I can; I must have read about a million texts on Wikipedia about various bands or performers. This article has to be THE most beautiful article on a band in the entire encyclopedia, ever! It IS biased, but the style, the composition, the logic of the article is flawless, and you cannot object to the data either. It is clearly the work of a fan, the sentimental overtones pour out of every sentence, but the text does not lack credibility. Please don't change it, because this is still a good article. Horizont Ocekivanja (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- No... it is a very bad article, even if it is a nice piece of prose. If this were SPIN it would be appropriate, but this is at least marginally supposed to an encyclopedia. A neutrally written article well supported by sources would be a much more useful thing than what currently appears here.--208.215.25.131 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this is difficult to read without cringing. I edited one paragraph to make it more NPOV. Maybe everyone can take on a paragraph and slowly clean this up? --Aaronp808 (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. This band deserves better. Radioflux (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- It deserves better? How do you know? If you know more about the band, please, rewrite the article. I didn't write it, but it seems that this is the best you're going to get for a band that was, at best, obscure (in America). If this were an article about a war, or whatever, I would agree about POV, but most music articles on this site are biased. Who else is going to take the time to write it? Especially little-known bands with a small, loyal core of followers. You're talking about music, something highly relative. Who cares if it's biased? And what does it matter? Can you dispute any of the facts in the article? You youreself are pointing out something relative ("Tone") as the basis for you're argument, a tough sell at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.113.132 (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No... it is a very bad article, even if it is a nice piece of prose. If this were SPIN it would be appropriate, but this is at least marginally supposed to an encyclopedia. A neutrally written article well supported by sources would be a much more useful thing than what currently appears here.--208.215.25.131 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, this article appears to be a straight rip-off of the bio on the band's own webite: http://www.uds.nl/biography.htm ... Radioflux (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not only that, the same text appears on a second site used by the band; http://raft.vmg.co.uk/uds/history1.htm. I've therefor taken the liberty to remove the part that was a straight copy-paste job and attempted a new write-up of the article. 78.90.187.26 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)