Talk:Latin boogaloo

Comments
I'm in the process of revising both the "boogaloo" and "Latin boogaloo" entires on Wikipedia. The term "boogaloo" should not be - as it currently is on Wikipedia - confused with the "Latin boogaloo." These two are distinct musical genres. Boogaloo began as an R&B dance fad and then was picked up by Latin musicians and turned into the Latin boogaloo (aka bugalú) but they are not identical in sound or style. What I'd like to fix is to 1) create a new Latin boogaloo page (which is what I have already done, using parts of the original Wiki page for "boogaloo") and then revise the main Wiki "boogaloo" page to reflect the term's R&B roots rather than the current conflation between the two.

I was not aware the original page contained wording mirrored in a copyrighted source though I'm not clear if the other encyclopedia is copying Wikipedia or vice versa.


 * Above written by user Soulsides in 2007 Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for merger
It seems clear to me that there should not be two pages dealing with the same topic. Since boogaloo is a fusion between pre-salsa Cuban and soul music, the two components should not be split. Looking at the content, the two pages are essentially the same. And none of the reference books makes such a distinction. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The merge discussion is on Boogaloo Talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk)

doo-wop
A para on doo-wop has crept in. Why is it here? Perhaps someone wanted to say Latinos also contributed to doo-wop, which they did. Details, though, can go on the doo-wop page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

POV cuts
The writing in the history section had some bias, and was not supported by refs. In particular, it was written to support the idea that boogaloo and latin boogaloo are two separate things. Which is obviously in dispute. The refs given are not full, so can't be used properly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

New World Encyclopedia
The above is a mirror and an unreliable source, per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84. For some reason, we had credited it in this article. Since NWE adjust our stuff for their own POV purposes, everything from NEW needs to go.

I cannot see an easy way out of this, while retaining genuine info added here since when ever the copy was done. Can anyone? - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)