- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pillar needs disambig. Randomblue (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Also, programming redirects to "computer programming" which I suppose isn't correct. Randomblue (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed both. Feel free to make such changes yourself by using the "edit this page" link at the top of the page. But thanks for pointing it out. Wikipedia brown (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Piracy statements by manager
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7215226.stm anyone want to whinge if I stick this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article is about music piracy, not U2. It's irrelevant to this article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Melicans. It seems like a one-off headline - ie, manager of the world's biggest band uttered words about piracy - is bound to get coverage, but is it really primary to the history of U2 on this page? If on the other hand, this turns out to be the start of significant involvement of the U2 camp in a larger campaign, or whatever, then we can revisit the topic later. For now leave it out, I say. (possibly it could go on McGuiness' page - maybe. --Merbabu (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
U2 has stated their position through their manager. If U2 wish the distance themselves from the statement then I would have no trouble having that in the article also. If he wasn't U2's manager then I am quite sure the media would have ignored him entirely. The comments where made under the guise of U2 I think they should stay. I can't see the need for anymore than one or two lines on this unless a further campaign is mounted (Just like Metallica). If U2 wants to make statements which attract controversy then they should be recorded, not whitewashed by the U2 PR department/fanclub. The full text of the speech is on the U2 website http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=2196 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's a statement made by Paul McGuiness on the music industry. It is not a statement made by U2, or a statement about U2. There is no purpose in mentioning it in the article when other, more significant events involving the band are not mentioned. This is an article about U2, not a chronological timeline about everything that anyone who is connected to the band has said. MelicansMatkin (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's not really any argument over whether it's representative of U2 or not, that's kind of irrelevant. I just can't see how a one-off headline statement (no matter who's view it represents) is worthy of inclusion - wait for more before inclusion.--Merbabu (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is Dik Evans listed in "Other personnel" at the bottom of the page ??-- he was in the band for like a few weeks and shouldn't share the same space with Paul McGuinness, Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois and Steve Lillywhite that have been with the band for years and years. I'm just confused why he's there. . . GG The Fly (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- hmm - i'm leaning to agreement with you (although it was more than a few weeks - closer to 2 years albeit at a time when the band weren't full time or as focussed as they were once he left). I'd like to hear other opinion first though. --Merbabu (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think that including Dick Evans is leaning on the 'too much info' side... this is about U2 and the fact that only people that have done HOURS and hours of digging and reading and following the band very closely even know the importance of that name... if someone is trying to dig that deep into u2, they already have other sources... it's not hurting the page, it's just not vital at all... Jgrizzy89 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with all three of you. I have no objections to it's removal. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody else want to weigh in? Thanks for your opinions! GG The Fly (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The newest sentence added to the end of "Reapplying for the..." section says that the newest album is due tentatively in October 2008, however the link provided (107) has no info or statement that says October... Also- Dream Theater released a Special edition of Systematic Chaos with a dvd on which they speak about how U2 has heavily influenced their style lately with songs like i walk beside you, prophets of war and forsaken. Also, as a dream theater fan, i know they've covered Bad a couple times live as well.... Worth noting, on both accounts? Jgrizzy89 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Covering Bad would go into the Bad article, preferably only if the cover was released on a DVD or a CD (studio or live). I see no reason why Dream Theatre can't be added to the small list of bands influenced by U2's music, as long as the source is properly cited. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Simpsons Episode S09E22
In passing I was a little surprised to notice there wasn't a reference mentioning U2's guest performances on "The Simpsons" Season 9 Episode 22 Titled "Trash of the Titans". I mention it from a cross-reference perspective and suggest an insertion. --Behälter (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- An agreement has been made that the harmonica will not be listed as one of Bono's instruments. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to include that Bono also plays the harmonica on several songs, but someone keeps editing it out every time I put it in. In order for people to become knowledgeable about each band members' role, I feel it is important for people to know what each band member plays. Just for general knowledge, Bono has played harmonica on Running to Stand Still, Desire, Angel of Harlem, among others. He actually probably plays the harmonica on more songs than he does with his guitar. So, I think others would agree that adding that Bono plays the harmonica is something that shouldn't be overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have reverted this addition numerous times because of prior discussions here, here and here, all of which clearly have a consensus that the information is NOT needed in this article. If we were to list every instrument that every band member has ever played, the infobox would be longer than the article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bono’s guitar playing is a lot more common that harmonica. Rather than write it all out again, I’ve pasted Melican’s recent comments on the topic:
- The consensus has been established that the fact that Bono plays the harmonica is completely irrelevent to the U2 article. If we were to list every instrument that every band member has played, the article would far too long. Read WP:TRIVIA. Bono has only ever played harmonica on three songs: Running to Stand Still, Trip Through Your Wires, and Desire. Vertigo Tour performances of Angel of Harlem are irrelevent as the song was only played 13 times on the entire tour. Trip Through Your Wires has not been played in almost 20 years, and Running to Stand Still very rarely in the last 15 years. Contrast that with the songs he has played guitar on: I Will Follow, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, Exit, One, Gone, Kite, Desire, Staring at the Sun, When Love Comes to Town, The Fly, the list goes on and on and is far more extensive than songs he plays the harmonica on. The fact that he plays the harmonica on rare occassions is trivia, and it fails WP:TRIVIA. There has been an established consensus among the editors of the U2 article for a very long time that the information is not to be included.
- Bono's also played piano on stage (1 song) and even the tambourine. We don't mention those. Please, let's get some perspective. regards --Merbabu (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
IP 126.96.36.199, you have been warned about consistently adding this information to the article, including a 3RR warning on your talk page which you have just violated. Please stop edit warring; the consensus is against you. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I just happened to stumble across the above discussion when I was searching for information on U2 performing with Maria McKee. I have to say that the above debate is just another example of the Wikipedia editors abusing their authority and acting like a Star Chamber to squash a perfectly logical and valid argument set forth to include Bono playing harmonica in the article on U2. I've used Wikipedia for years and have even authored a couple of articles and I think the larger issue here is that it seems every new article created these days is flagged numerous times, edited, or just plain ole removed by editors who take exception for one reason or another. This also happens a great deal when popular or high profile articles are edited or amended, If Wikipedia is supposed to be truly collaborative, you have to loosen the reigns and give people some freedom to write an article or contribute to one without interference. The above is a perfect example. It seems to me that the addition was relevant, fit the context of where it was inserted in the article, and was grammatically correct. I think those are the types of things that the editors should be looking for. But it seems that all too often, editors exercise their authority because they (in their perceived infinite wisdom) have their own idea of what Wikipedia should be, what it should include and how it should be presented. I always thought Wikipedia was supposed to be something of a coop. But it seems the mysterious "great and powerful Oz-like" editors will find any excuse to disqualify input. What this has done is create a "Why bother?" attitude amongst many of us when considering contributing to Wikipedia. So many of the Wikipedia "guidelines" have just become so arbitrary -- from formatting specifcations; to decisions on what is or is not considered notable, trivia, or opinion; to whether or not an uploaded photo has been properly licensed; and the list goes on and on. Authoring on Wikipedia is becoming more and more of an exclusive club, ironically, the exact opposite of what the initial intent was. Yes, I'll continue to use it as an information source in some cases but the editors have made contributing just too darn unweildy and unfriendly a process. And now, I await deletion of this post, as I'm sure I've violated some guideline or rule by posting in a closed argument, adding to the wrong section, not signing my post, formatting improperly or just expressing my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, it appears as if the IP is unwilling to listen to the reasons provided. If any of the editors on here would like to, I invite you to contribute to the discussion which appears to be currently held on my talk page. Hopefully you can explain the situation better than I can. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It should be discussed here on this page for everyone to see - try and direct the editor here. --Merbabu (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. For reference, I've included below the entire discussion between myself and the IP up to this point in time.
- I'm kinda new to the whole editing thing, but I have been trying to make people visiting the U2 Wikipedia page aware that Bono does more than just sing and play guitar; he is also a noted harmonica player. However, each time I simply try to add "harmonica" to: "Bono (vocals and guitar)", someone repeatedly edits it out. I don't think this is a case of a well-formed sentence or a dispute over how the statement sounds, as I'm just adding an additional attribute Bono has to a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've already explained this on Talk:U2. The consensus is that his playing of the harmonica need not, and should not, be added to the article. Other editors will tell you the same thing. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of the "consensus" with a few random people, if you read what I wrote, Bono probably plays the harmonica more often than he does guitar. It's an important part of songs, such as Running to Stand Still, Desire, Angel of Harlem (on the Vertigo Tour), among others that I can't think of off the top of my head. I don't see what the problem is with adding simply one word to give people a better description of what Bono can do, more than just sing and occasionally play a guitar (that no one can ever hear anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The consensus has been established that the fact that Bono plays the harmonica is completely irrelevent to the U2 article. If we were to list every instrument that every band member has played, the article would far too long. Read WP:TRIVIA. Bono has only ever played harmonica on three songs: Running to Stand Still, Trip Through Your Wires, and Desire. Vertigo Tour performances of Angel of Harlem are irrelevent as the song was only played 13 times on the entire tour. Trip Through Your Wires has not been played in almost 20 years, and Running to Stand Still very rarely in the last 15 years. Contrast that with the songs he has played guitar on: I Will Follow, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, Exit, One, Gone, Kite, Desire, Staring at the Sun, When Love Comes to Town, The Fly, the list goes on and on and is far more extensive than songs he plays the harmonica on. The fact that he plays the harmonica on rare occassions is trivia, and it fails WP:TRIVIA. There has been an established consensus among the editors of the U2 article for a very long time that the information is not to be included. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, using your argument then, you should also remove that The Edge plays piano, as he only does so on October, New Year's Day, Running to Stand Still, and (only on tour) Miss Sarajevo and Original of the Species (the few times that it was played). If you only want to give each band members' main contributions musically, then I insist that we remove the fact that The Edge plays the piano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, your information is incorrect. The Edge has played keyboards on more songs than that. Into the Heart and The Unforgettable Fire are two examples that come to mind immediately. As you can see here, the discussion is now over. I will thank you to not continue harping on about it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'd appreciate it if all of you "uber-editors" would get down off of your soapboxes for a minute and see the crux of the issue here. You seem to contradict yourself saying, noting that the harmonica is not a main part of Bono's so-called repertoire, then we should discount his guitar playing, as well. I'm also confused whether we're talking about when U2 is on tour or strictly album versions of songs. If the touring is the case, shouldn't we include that Bono plays the drums, too since he did so every night on the Vertigo Tour during "Love and Peace or Else"? Or, even more, should we include that Larry is a vocalist, since he sang several acapella songs on the ZooTV Tour and every night on the Vertigo Tour to "Love and Peace or Else" and "Miracle Drug"? Or that The Edge is probably a more proficient bass player than most, as he has played bass on every rendition of "40" since its beginnings? Or how about Bono singing backing vocals on "Seconds"? Adam Clayton has also been shown to sing backing vocals, especially during the War Tour. My point is this: while some things may appear to be irrelevant, your reasoning behind the exclusion of the harmonica and inclusion of other things is inconsistent. If you are basing your actions on simply how many times one of the band members plays a certain instrument, then all of the above examples should apply.
- In regards to Bono's "guitar playing" on apparently tons of songs, in your opinion (although again, I am not sure if you mean solely album versions...if this is so, how can you distinguish?...or live versions), his guitar is virtually never on in the first place, questioning his ability to play it well enough in the first place. The only times it can really be heard off the top of my head are Unchained Melody from ZooTV, One during Vertigo Tour, some versions of The Fly...basically only added snippets of songs after all the other sounds have been turned down/stopped being played.
- Regardless of how many songs The Edge plays on piano, it is not his main ability, if that is indeed the purpose of the intro section, which I am coming to believe it is. Again, here lies the disconnect. The Edge's featured musical ability is really only two things based on the logic of you editors: vocals and guitar. Bono should merely be lead vocals or add ONE WORD to his introduction, however much that may pain the Wikipedia community.
- If you actually weigh what I've said rather than simply dismiss it because you (and, admittedly, others) are obviously on a power trip, you would see where more information could be gained by the public in adding this detail of Bono's abilities. This is an online encyclopedia, correct? Then it should supply as much information as possible, especially when it comes to a section that is specifically made to describe each band members' abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said, I'm not willing to continue the discussion here. If you insist on continuing it, please go to Talk:U2#Continuing debate where other editors apart from myself shall involve themselves in the discussion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree harmonica should not be listed in this article. [Added to show additional support for the established concensus.] Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be necessary to write on the rock music, the punk and alternative not sufficient hypotenuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- They played an alternative dance style during the Pop era. Is this notable? --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We've been getting a lot of anonymous vandalism lately, from a variety of IP addresses. I think semi-protection would be a good idea, but I figured I'd get some other opinions before requesting protection. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, semi-protection would be good. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's been almost 24 hours since I proposed the protection idea, and we still seem to be having problems. After reviewing the amount of vandalism with the articles for which semi-protection was granted, this article seems to be having more of an issue, so I'm going to request protection now. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Referring to places by place, country (eg, Paris, France; London, England etc) is American English. It is rarely used in British English or Hiberno-English. Why, as this article is described as being written in British English, are Americanisms like that constantly added in?
(BTW why do people write articles on music topics that are filled with music journalism jargon? This is an encyclopaedia, not NME, Rolling Stone or Hot Press!) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, what specifically do you think sounds like a music magazine? The article passed its recent FA review without any comments about it being too "jargony", and the article has not changed much since it achieved FA. If you can point out certain cases which do sound NPOV or excessive, I'd be happy to work with you and other editors to improve them. By the way, if you want to see what real music jargon looks like, please see the 2005 versions of this article in the history tab. Wikipedia brown (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Using American English on wikipedia makes much more sense. British English would be just another European language were it not for the power of the United States, just as Spanish would be without the numerical strength of South America. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Small grammar question
The first phrase of the article sounded really off to me U2 (IPA: /ˌjuːˈtuː/) are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. , shouldn't it be U2 (IPA: /ˌjuːˈtuː/) is a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. ?
- No; convention states that bands are to be referred to in the plural, not the singular. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. and for the prompt reply. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem at all, and I'm glad that I could help :) MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What convention are you referring to? I was just browsing through wikipedia, and I stumbled upon this article and I couldn't even get past the first sentence without taking a second breath --honestly, I have never seen U2 referred to in the plural form (except, of course, in this article). The name U2 is referring to one band and, as such, should be singular. ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
U2 is definitively post-punk!!
Please see sources:
Britannica Rolling Stone
Feel free to add these to article. Wikipedia brown (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pigeon holing along genres is fraught with difficulty - particularly with a band like U2 with such a long history and diverse back catalogue. There ain't much that's post punk about mysterious ways or sweetest thing. However, U2 were considered a post punk band in the late 70s or 80s. It depends whether we are looking at current classification, or those that were only valid previously. If previously, then I'd support it (unless someone can convince me otherwise).
- Related to this, I once added "pop" to the genres. While Sweetest Thing, Mysterious Ways, and Angel of Harlem are extremely pop, some would argue reasonably well that Bullet or Love and Peace or Else are not. Further, what's alt rock about angel of harlem or Love Rescue Me?
- So, this and the post punk question beg the question - what are the criteria for a valid U2 genre pigeon hole. If the regular edits and U2 project can establish an agreed criteria, then we can establish a set of genres, and then as a group we can establish this as a firm consensus, which would need very very good justification (ie, further discussion) to remove. Personally, I'd suggest we go one extreme or the other - ie, be strict and have one 1 single genre "Rock", or open it write up "Rock", "Alt Rock", "Post Punk", "Pop", etc, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
U2 and U2 single templates
An anon editor 184.108.40.206 (their contribs) has changed the 2 templates - ie, combined them into a super template. I think both are already too big. I've reverted the changes to the U2 template, and would like to reinstate the U2 singles template. Please respond to this issue here. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Who directed their music videoes
I've been working on the u2 discography page for a while now and i'm wondering who directed all these music videoes. --U2 is alternative rock (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't anything said about their christianity in this artical?And with all the christian lyrics in some songs wouldn't that make them a christian rock band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that more should be said about the band members' Christian background and beliefs, both past and present, and how that has influenced their music. However, to call them a "Christian rock band" is fraught with problems because of all the connotations that term implies. U2 are not a "Christian" band in the sense that they have not sought to make their Christian faith front and center in their music. They do not "preach" through their music, nor do they try to actively convert others to their faith. They have not made public proclamations regarding their faith, though they have not tried to hide it either. Most of all, the band members themselves have sought to avoid being labeled as a "Christian rock band."
There is also the issue that since the 1990s various members of the group have lived lifestyles and acted in ways that might seem to some to be incompatible with a Christian way of life (one small example being Bono's penchant for using the "f-word" with abandon). Add to that the fact that one of the band members (Adam) publicly denies being a Christian believer, and there are numerous reasons that U2 should not be labeled a "Christian rock band."
Nevertheless, the fact that Bono, The Edge, and Larry have all been deeply influenced by Christian teachings and the Bible, and were involved in a Christian Bible study group in the early 1980s, plus Bono's numerous statements on Jesus and the Bible over the years, all merit mention in an article about the band. Many of their songs only make sense in light of their Christian beliefs. Also, Bono's well-known political and social activism is fueled by his exposure to and involvement in Christian faith, and this is worthy of mention. Moreover, the fact that it's rare for openly Christian people to be involved in rock and roll music and culture is all the more reason for mention to be made of these facts in the main article. Spiritquest (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading the influences part and it says that Arcade fire is a band that have influenced U2. This is not referenced like the other bands mentioned. Can this be verified. Although I'm sure its not impossible that they are an influence on the band it seems to me that Arcade fire are a much younger band than U2 and don't to fit in with the other influences mentioned.Kavanar2 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no official evidence that the title of the twelfth album is called 'No Line on the Horizon' other than fan speculation from a known song title, and a domain registered by Universal. It is speculated that NLOTH might be the lead single, but even that's just speculation, and there is NO EVIDENCE that it will be the album title, other than an article in a British paper that didn't have any sources named, and seemed to pull its "facts" right out of a U2 forum I frequent. Can we agree to keep it labeled as U2's Twelfth Studio Album instead of NLOTH? Digitize (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. In fact, I'd go further and remove it completely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable and stable information. Not a rumour mill, crystal ball or a news. See WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CHILL and WP:NOTNEWS. I suggest asking for semi protect to stop drive by IPs from adding rumours. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Since it is just speculation at the moment, the article should remain untitled. Once reliable sources are referenced, then it should be changed. KhanadaRhodes (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Experimental music genre
I attempted to re-add Experimental music to the infobox list of Genres, but it was reverted (even after a source was supplied) with a note that the U2 Wikiproject would get fired up, at least I assume that's what the reference was to. I only dispute this because I remember seeing an interview with Bono back in 1993 when U2 was performing in Yankee Stadium, and he mentioned the group's movement into that genre at the time. I can't find that local news reference, but I was able to locate several references to U2 being in the Experimental music genre. This doesn't mean they're an experimental band, just that they have produced music in that genre. Just throwing this out there to see what others think. Dreadstar † 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- What I was referring to was the fact that there have been debates over U2's genre before and the "rock, alternative rock, post-punk" listing is what was decided on. And even those seemed difficult to agree on. I would caution against adding experimental rock to any article about a band/artist because "experimental rock" is so hard to define and is more an umbrella term than any other I've seen. From what I gather, experimental rock is usually when artists are pushing the boundaries of song structure or composition, or they are using instruments or techniques very alien to music making. U2 doesn't fit into that at all. Even if some sources say experimental rock, I think they are referring to the band "experimenting" with their sound, not the definition that Wikipedia provides for experimental rock. Furthermore, the reference you provided was a Barnes and Noble review of one of their albums, talking about some of their influences. That hardly constitutes enough reason to warrant being put into the band's infobox. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to these previous discussions? As I indicated above, there are more references to U2 delving into experimental music, and I distinctly recall Bono talking about it - I'll continue searching for any references to that comment. Dreadstar † 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- The thing to remember is that the article is about the band as a whole and the genre(s) mentioned should reflect that, rather than trying to mention every sub-genre the band dabbled in or even mentioned in referencing themselves at some point. If you can find a good reference (ie. "Around the time of Achtung Baby the band was in an exploratory phase and Bono described them as delving into "experimental music" )" go ahead and mention it where appropriate but that still wouldn't be a reason to add another genre to the box. Personally I don't even like the "alternative rock" or "post punk" tags (it's hard to get less "alternative" than the most popular band of the era), but I can understand why they apply; on the other hand U2 is no more an experimental music band that Led Zeppelin was a reggae band. Jgm (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- This genre is significant to the group's history in several ways, first it's mentioned in reliable sources ; it was talked about (by Bono and others) at the time, and the move in that direction helped to "alienate" some of their fan base. But I'm not hung up on including it, and will bow to consensus on this, but we may be doing a disservice to our readers by not including significant genres that a band has explored, which does not make the group into an "experimental band"; certainly calling Led Zeppelin a reggae band would be false, but inlcuding that as a genre doesn't make them fall directly under that category. If that's the case, then the genre should just be rock, just to keep it basic. I'll leave this to the editors here to figure that out. I've also posted a request on the U2 Wikiproject page about this, wouldn't want to get them all fired up by leaving them out of the discussion...or whatever... :) Dreadstar † 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- To return to your example about Led Zeppelin and reggae - they might have explored that genre for a few songs, like "D'yer Mak'er", but that alone is not enough to constitute the reggae genre being added to the band's infobox. That section is pretty much reserved only for labels the band itself should be bestowed with. You can certainly add reggae to the infobox of "D'yer Mak'er," but not Led Zeppelin. To go full circle with U2, their albums Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop are all certainly alternative rock albums with eletronica and dance influences, so I'm not sure why we wouldn't keep alternative rock in the band's infobox. And if we wanted to indicate the band's experimental phase, I'm not so sure experimental rock is the right term (I mean, just read the definition of it in the article). I would think something like alternative dance is more appropriate. By the way, Jgm, I think you are confused by the meaning of alternative rock now - it doesn't mean that music is an "alternative" to the more mainstream music. It has just come to envelope a lot of rock music as a whole. And back when it had a different definition in the 80s (more in the same vein as college rock), U2 probably fit the definition even then. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If I am correct, wasn't Beautiful Day selected as the track of [the year] 2000? I'm pretty sure that this was stated on a previous version of the article. Skimming through the page, I believe this snippet of info has been removed. As I am unwilling to re-add it myself (through fear of being wrong), can someone confirm this and take the necessary action? Thanks. A Prodigy (t•c•m) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- By "track of the year" I guess you mean the Grammy for song of the year and/or song of the year, both of which "Beautiful Day" indeed won. This is reflected in the article for the song, the album, and in the List of U2 awards article. Now what action was it you were thinking of? Jgm (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh does the song have it's own article? I never knew that, never mind. I didn't know these things at first. Forget I even brought this up XD. A Prodigy (t•c•m) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposed change to the lead
I was reading over the lead and although it does a great job of summarizing U2 succintly, I felt it glossed over a few important items. So I'm proposing some changes and throwing this out there to see what everyone thinks. I added a note about the band's song content and then moved up their accolades to the first paragraph to make the last paragraph about their political impact. I also tried to note what kind of band U2 was early on and how they progressed through the years.
U2 (English pronunciation: /ˌjuːˈtuː/) are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. The band consists of Bono (vocals and guitar), The Edge (guitar, keyboards, and vocals), Adam Clayton (bass guitar) and Larry Mullen, Jr. (drums and percussion). U2 have sold more than 170 million albums worldwide and have won more Grammy Awards than any other band. In 2005, the band were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility. Rolling Stone Magazine listed U2 at #22 in their list of the 100 greatest artists of all time.
The band formed in 1976 when the members were teenagers with limited musical proficiency. U2's first few albums, their sound rooted in post-punk, saw modest success. By the mid-1980s, however, the band had become a top international act, noted for their anthemic sound, Bono's impassioned vocals, and The Edge's chiming, textural guitar playing. Their success as a live act was greater than their success at selling records until their 1987 album The Joshua Tree increased the band's stature "from heroes to superstars," according to Rolling Stone. U2 responded to the dance and alternative rock revolutions, and their own sense of musical stagnation by reinventing themselves with their 1991 album Achtung Baby and the accompanying Zoo TV Tour. Similar experimentation continued for the rest of the 1990s with mixed reception. Since 2000, U2 have pursued a more traditional sound that retains the influence of their musical explorations, while attaining both critical and commercial success.
Much of the band's music features social and political commentary, often combined with religious imagery. Throughout their career, as a band and as individuals, they have campaigned for human rights and social justice causes, including Amnesty International, the ONE Campaign, and Bono's DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade in Africa) campaign.
Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- A few comments: I applaud your effort to beef up the lead with more of a sense of the band's history and import but I think it would be best not to try to discuss particular albums/tours in the lead; it should suffice to mention that the band reached several peaks of popularity in the late 1980s and early 2000s and successfully maintained currency and popularity over several decades by recurrently modifying and updating their sound and approach. Or something like that. I oppose the use of "post-punk" in the lead as that term is ill-defined and the linked WP article is a mess. I'm not sure I buy the "often" applied to "religious imagery", I'm also not happy with "traditional sound" which is subjective ("traditional" compared to what? Chuck Berry?) and not really meaningful, as at this point the band defines the mainstream as much as anyone. Jgm (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- The current lead has gone through many discussions, reviews, refinements; the most important of which was several FAC processes (ultimately successful). That it has been so stable for so long is a testament to it's quality. Indeed, FA status was awarded on the basis of the current lead, and much of your newly proposed information - and/or very similar material - was removed by consensus. Much of the new additions are vague (indeed, "traditional" means what? - tribal drumming?) and border on POV and flag waving. I agree with Jgm's points. --Merbabu (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't add the word "traditional" to the article just now. It's been there as long as you have been trying to get the article featured. If we both disagree with the "traditional" wording, how is it that it's been in the lead for a long time and hasn't been changed at all? I guess people are finding it hard to rewrite? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Post-punk is a vague term, but the band have countless times referred to themselves that way, as have critics. I think it's safe to say they encompass the genre, however one would define it. I can understand someone raising an eyebrow over "traditional sound", but I can't think of another way to describe it ("stripped-down"? "back-to-basics?"). Maybe we can say they "returned to their traditional sound". What are your reservations about the lyrical content when I mention "religious imagery?" Finally, the information about specifics albums and tours has been a longtime foundation of the article lead, and I think it should remain that way, since those things are the band's defining, most popular works. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Jgm and Merbabu. See the lead before the FAC: , which was somewhat similar to what you propose. The discussion during the FAC review resulted in trimming and tightening of the prose, and I don't think it's a good idea to revisit it (if it ain't broken ...). Some of the language that you put forth is indeed vague, but I can see where you got it (other parts of the article). I think those parts should be changed, rather than adding the imprecise language to the lead. Overall, I'm very reluctant to have major changes made to the lead at this point unless there's new information added, or vital information that was somehow overlooked, or the prose is noticeably improved. But don't let this dissuade you Y2kcrazyjoker4, there's a lot of other improvements that can be made to this article and other U2-related articles. Wikipedia brown (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
How is it that if I wanna mention the lyrical content of U2's music in the lead with a reference, it's POV, but in a section called "Musical style," it's perfectly acceptable? I'm not sure some people understand what POV means. Secondly, we mention all of the political things U2 does away from their music in the lead - why can't we mention the political nature of their music itself? Don't you think this is significant? Is this not one of the things that comes to mind when you think of U2, in comparison to other rock bands?? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- that's not what I meant. Your edit implied politics and religion was the most important aspect of their lyrics. First, such an assessment of importance is POV (even if it wasn't actually what you meant). Second, it's probably not correct. These are the reason I I removed it until something can be agreed on. It can be discussed here before a change is agreed on. It’s the lead to a prominent feature article. It’s not a stub on an obscure song. --Merbabu (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)--Merbabu (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But we can at least agree that a good amount of U2's music is politically charged, right? I mean, of course they will make other music that does not involve political, social, or religious issues, but these are the areas that seem to dominant the majority of their music, and I thought that something like that was important to understanding the band's music and motivations. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistency of history subsection titles
Shouldn't we be consistent in the way we name the history subsections? Most of them are all named after the band's albums or tours (which really don't seem to say much about what that point in the band's history meant), and then the last one is oddly named after a quote from Bono. Shouldn't we choose either/or, rather than mixing and matching? Alternatively, we could split 2000-2008 into two parts, one for each album/tour, and name it like such to match the previous sections. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Only one section covers only one album - the UF. Arguably, that could be condensed into the 87-89 section. As for the quote, it would be a very long section heading. --Merbabu (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused - the current heading for the section on the last 2 albums is a quote, and it seems you are describing it when you say its a very long section heading. Yet, you say it "would" be a long heading, as if it's not being used now. Could you clarify what you are talking about? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a very long section if we used the two album headings:
- “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” and “How to Dismantle and Atomic Bomb” – 2000 to present
- Compared to the existing and already longish:
- "Reapplying to be the best band in the world" (2000–present)"
- regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Total album sales
The 170m figure can’t be correct. Here’s what I posted on another users talk page:
- ’’Thanks. Seems much more reasonable. I understand Joshua Tree sold over 20million (maybe), but a 170m+ figure means they needed nine albums to sell almost 20mil each. That's got to be wrong. Cheers’’
This is a feature article, and to maintain the expected highest quality that entails, we must have such fundamental information correct, especially if it is in the lead. I suggest two options:
- My preference is for the 115m figure to be in over the clearly incorrect and illogical 170m figure.
- Alternatively, remove the info altogether until such time that there is a (well-sourced) figure that we are happy with.
We can’t just put in the highest figure when it is mathematically incorrect, even if it is referenced. References can sometimes be wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here's what I posted on another user's talk page:
- "U2 has 12 studio albums if you include their soundtrack album, and 26 albums if you include their live and compilation albums. It is entirely possible that they have sold 170 million records. Especially, if you consider the fact that the 20 million figure that you quoted is an old, low-ball number."
- Also, the former source seems to be much more reliable than the latter, since it comes from an established news source. ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- It may be a reliable source, but case for disputing it is strong. I am sure the case would be stronger still if one was to go thru and itemise each album's total sales figure. Thus, other sources need to be found to support it. Anyone want to itemise each album?
- I'm not sure about the 14 compilatio album figure. U2 has 4 mainstream compilation albums depending how you count. From memory, the biggest seller (1980-1990) sold over 10million. The other 10 of the compilations you list are by comparison far more obscure fan club releases – if they have a million sales clocked up between them, I’d be very surprised. (and is there actually 10?).
- I think we can all agree though that this is a hole in information, and if indeed it is 170mil, then we really need stronger verification. --Merbabu (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
They way I came up with the "26 albums" figure is as follows: 11 studio albums, 1 soundtrack album, 9 live albums, and 5 compilations. Many of their live albums and all of their compilation albums have sale-counts that are in the multi-millions. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why the 170-million figure is that unbelievable. The Independent is a reputable news publication and I doubt they fudged any of their numbers, but if you guys would like to tally up each and every album sales figure on your own, feel free to. I, however, don't think that this is necessary. ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- This thread is interesting: Go to ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35213. Apparently, Billboard and Interscope both said U2 had sold 120 million albums worldwide before How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb was released. I think 170 is a stretch. Another way to look at it: in 2000, the band was recognized for 100 million records sold, and since then, they have sold nearly 37 million more albums. Or, you can look at more recent press releases and go with 140 million  I would tend to believe these recent press releases and the background information about U2 on the DATA website, since that is Bono's charity. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you just solved our dispute. 140 million seems like a reasonable number and, furthermore, you have found two reliable sources. I think you should change the number to "140 million" and add the two references to the article. Good job! ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 06:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although I haven't got time to do any investigation into the issue right now, I too would be happy for the 140m figure and references to be inserted for the time being. Nice work. --Merbabu (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Main page request
September 25th marks the 32nd anniversary of U2's first meeting. How about getting this article on the main page on that day? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good suggestion, and I've been trying to do this for the last month or two, and it's just not meant to be. U2 lost 3 points because there was a recent music-related article as the main page article. Since anniversaries only yield 1 point, this means U2 was in negative-territory for a Sept 25th main page article. I think we'll have to wait until either it becomes a year-old-FA (next January), or on the next anniversary of the band on September 25, 2009, unless someone has a better idea. Wikipedia brown (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- How about on March 2nd? =P MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I know ChatzSpy or whatever has gotten at me for putting MySpace links, but the official sites don't always have a link to MySpace, as in this case. I know this isn't a directory, but more people come here than DMOZ. I'll put the link here because U2 are too big a deal for me to do it on the article in plain sight.
U2 on Myspace Sposato (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Lyrics and themes", the song "Mothers of the Disappeared" is referred to as being about the mothers in Argentina. The song was based on Bono's experiences in El Salvador. In "U2 by U2" Bono also makes references to Chile, where the same thing happened. Argentina is the best known example of mothers publicly mourning their disappeared children, but not the only one. Christer Daatland, Singapore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Dispute over Image:U2-teenagers.jpg
User:Rama is debating the use of this image on the basis that "There are Free images of U2. The rational "from this time period" could be applied to anything and would allow using any media as "fair use" if taken seriously. The image is not the only one available of the period and had no particular significance over the others, indication that is used for mere decorative purposes." If free images of U2 existed from this time period, they likely would have been submitted by now. Although I disagree with the reasons for the dispute, I'm not much of an expert on non-free images on Wikipedia. Would a person with more knowledge and experience than me please provide their input? Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
New album officially confirmed
The new album title, No Line on the Horizon has been officially confirmed by the band today, with a release date of March 2, 2009. I'd like to add this to the "discography" section and possible to the main body text, but wanted to get some feedback here first to avoid any edit wars. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- that info would be fine to include. My only concern would be that with the u2 machine now cranking up, we need to make sure that we don't let the page become a news service with every little detail posted as it happens. at this stage I don't think it needs a new section. Let's wait to see how the year pans out. --Merbabu (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
After taking a look at the article The Dalton Brothers (band), I don't really see it as being necessary as having it's own article. There really isn't much more that could be added to it, and once the cruft is removed I don't think it really stands on its own. Would anyone be adverse to a merge with this article, likely within The Joshua Tree subsection? MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- hmmm - I am reluctant to see that. The u2 article and the jt section are already crammed full and a number of things are not mentioned that are more notable.maybe a 1/2 sentence mention and a link to a trimmed version of this article. I will have a closer look tonight. --Merbabu (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be against a full merger too: with a "readable prose" size of 32Kb the length of this article is spot on. Any additions would need to be minor or risk the need to split something else off. --JD554 (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"Sonically, Achtung Baby incorporated dance, industrial, and alternative rock influences of the time and the band referred to the album as the sound of "four men chopping down the Joshua Tree"."
Does anybody other than music jounrnalists actually use the words 'sonic' or 'sonically' to describe music? I've never heard anyone use it in conversation. If this is a bit of journalese it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just journalists; its been used since at least 1936, though I'd agree it isn't the most common of words. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone think of an alternative word that's slightly more common parlance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why dumb it down? It's fine as-is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Was vs. Were
FOR THE LAST SENTENCE IN SECTION 6...The correct word is WAS instead of WERE. A collective noun, according to Webster's II: New Riverside University Dictionary is: "A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit. usage: A collective noun takes a singular verb when the reference is to a group as a whole and a plural verb when the reference is to members of a group as single individuals: The orchestra was playing. The orchestra have all gone home.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. As was stated above, convention in this case dictates that U2 are to be used as a plural noun. Why? Because bands are pluralized in British English, which is what this article uses.
- Also, next time please create a new section for your comments instead of just dumping them in the centre of the article. Thank you. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.