Talk:Achtung Baby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Achtung Baby is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 19, 2011.

Find sources: "Achtung Baby" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Put your comments in a header!![edit]

"Until the End of the World" is a staple of their live show and charted, but it was never released as a single. It was released as a radio-only promo, but then, so was half the album and a B-side.

--typhoon 01:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Say, anyone think that a seperate page for the Salome bootlegs/outtakes is a decent idea? I don't know enough about it to do it myself, but I might do some research if no one else does...

-- Andrew McCaffrey 03:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Individual song articles[edit]

I added articles for every song on the album, according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs guidelines. They could use some work, though. --Kristbg 23:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert Christgau Bomb[edit]

Does anybody can explain what that bomb means ? It´s obvious reading his reviews that he´s a pretensious and mediocre music critic, but wen I first saw this "bomb" it tought it was in a good sense. But after reading his reviews, I noticed he didn´t wrote anything about the album, so that only can means he found it execrable. From an obviously mediocre person it can be understandable, but as far as I can think no decent critic would ever give it such a bad note. I think the "bomb" should be removed, because "Achtung Baby" is, by far, one of the best rock albums ever made. User:Mistico

Well, we shouldn't remove a review just because we don't agree with it... but I have to agree that I can't see why a review by that guy is more relevant than one written by myself or any other person. --Kristbg 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem as you can see by yourself is that the critic doesn´t even wrote a review about this album ! He simply put a "bomb" note. So, as much as I could disagree with his review, I would agree that it should remain, at least to people see that some critics have weird personal tastes in music (the man gives A - to Shakira´s "Laundry Service" !) But as the man is so cinical that he didn´t even wrote a review on "Achtung Baby", I think the link should and must be removed. User:Mistico

I don't understand Wikipedia's obsession with this guy; he's all over the album pages on the site. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums says "do not include reviews from people or groups whose judgement our audience has no reason to respect," and I've never found anything on his web site that makes me care about his opinions. He's apparently some legendary rock critic, and that's all well and good, but his web site sucks. The reviews are all short or non-existent and pretty insubstantial even when he bothers to actually write something. I don't care if a review is positive or not or even insightful or not, but it should at least look like the author was trying.

Anyway, removing his reviews is probably a lost cause. I tried it before on various album pages (U2 and otherwise), and people just add them back for whatever reason. Like I said, people are obsessed with this guy for some reason. --typhoon 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took it out. After all, it's not a review, it's just a picture of a bomb. When someone puts up a review by Robert Christgau that has actual WORDS, I guess it'll be fine. --Kristbg 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm, it's back. What the hell, let it stay - never cared much about it anyway... --Kristbg 20:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Cristiano, I took too much time before finishing the edit and starting and finishing this note! It means a dud, and it means Christgau didn't like it. The fact that he didn't write any words to go with the review is egregious, but his '90s and later reviews' grading scale do not offer justification for any dud ratings. (I notice that he likes (i.e., B- or better) virtually every U2 album).
While I do NOT agree with many a of his reviews, he is a veteran music critic from the Village Voice and needs to be taken seriously, if he does say so himself. Especially before 1988 or so, he usually has something interesting to say in his reviews.
This non-review appeared in the April 21 1992 issue of the Voice - along with an A- for Kronos Quartet. You can take Christgau for what he is — a pompous, bloviating certified New York Rock Snob — but the fact that he didn't like Achtung Baby (which is one of my own fave raves) shouldn't be taken personally. It was not to his taste and he found Chris Bell more compelling, alas. More to the point, if you're going to use Christgau reviews you have to take his bad calls along with his good ones. --Fantailfan 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to remove the review just because I didn't agree with it. Although I would hardly consider Achtung Baby a "bomb", it's not one of my favorite U2 albums either. But the reason I removed it is because I don't think that a "review" has happened until the reviewer has something to say about the object of his review. You'll notice that I also removed Christgau's review for Pop, for the same reason. I actually read all reviews of U2 albums he wrote, and I agree with some (not many) of them. I just don't consider the "bomb" a review.
Since I removed the review from the article, I took a look at the WikiProject:Albums, and I noticed that Christgau is listed there as an accepted reviewer, so I don't think it's up to me anymore to decide whether or not it should stay there.
Oh, and I'm sorry if it looked like I took it personally. Again, I just didn't think that it wasn't worth mentioning, as the only thing one would find by clicking on the link would be the picture of the bomb... and I know you didn't take it personally either, as I see you're also a fan of Achtung Baby... :-)
So... no hard feelings. --Kristbg 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You didn't take it personally--you argue against it in fact, earlier. It's more, I think, a question of using rock criticism as a guide to purchasing music (have any Freedy Johnston? I do) is tricky, at best. Or letting it color one's feelings against a piece of music one treasures, despite questionable citical appraisal. --Fantailfan 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
lol, you're right... hmmmmm, gotta find something by Freedy Johnston :) --Kristbg 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If Robert Christgau wants to be taken seriously and since he disliked that much such an important U2 album, why the Hell he didn´t wrote about it ? It´s simply absurd. We can judge the taste of this critic by the fact that he prefers Shakira´s "Laundry Service" to all U2 albums. User:Mistico

Robert Christgau, whether you agree with him or not, has been reviewing music since 1967 for The Village Voice and has listened to, and reviewed, thousands of recordings. He is an "accepted reviewer" for Wikipedia. I would say almost forty years of cultural criticism and millions of words published proves that he is taken seriously. He prefers many things to all of U2's albums, which can be said of millions of popular music fans. He prefers many things which very few people have any use for. You can easily find critics who loathe U2, including Achtung Baby, and will be happy to tell you in several thousand words just how bad it is.
And, as I said previously, Christgau's "'90s and later reviews' grading scale do not offer justification for any dud ratings" which is his prerogative. --Fantailfan 01:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I respect other people opinions, but at least, I want to read what they have to say ! You say that "You can easily find critics who loathe U2, including Achtung Baby, and will be happy to tell you in several thousand words just how bad it is." We are not talking about other critics but this in particular. But I have to agree that it´s some pretensious critics prerrogative not to explain his opinions. By the way, I can´t figure out many serious critics who give less then 3 in a 0-5 scale to that U2 album, and nobody needs to write a novel to explain his views of it. I don´t mind with Christgau at all, but since some people like him that much, let´s leave his rating there. For me, it´s the end of discussion. User:Mistico

I think the link should be removed as it doesn't tell the reader anything. The "bomb" symbol is on the page, but if I click on his review it doesn't tell me anymore. That's not really the point of a link. If someone wants to add a "Critical reaction" section to the article and mention good or bad reviews, then its fair to include Christgau's "bomb". But as a link, it serves no purpose at all. The reader would be better served by a link to an actual review, that tells us something about why some critics were hostile to the album. If there are so many negative reviews it should be simple enough to find one. JW 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course it serves a purpose: the point of the link in the infobox is to let the reader verify the rating, not merely to reference a full review which may or may not be available. Remember that all info in a Wikipedia article, including tiny bits like a professional rating, has to be verifiable. If you take the link away, then you're taking away the verification of the info, which violates WP:V; and if you take the whole rating away, then you are censoring the info, which violates WP:NPOV (most probably because personally you don't agree with it, as it's clearly the case with all the previous people who have been censoring this rating). 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should definately be removed, seeing as Christgau, while a major and sometimes controversial critic, did not actually write anything about the album. A review implies criticism. The "bomb" is a grade. Giving grades is not criticism, it's value judgement. These are two different things. Criticism doesn't necessarily imply value judgement. I don't see a logical justification for keeping an unexplained, arbitrary, subjective grade under the "reviews" section. True, many reviews are in fact elaborately explained opinion, but that makes it poor criticism. In this case, there isn't even any criticism in question. "Bomb" is not a review, it's a dismissal without explanation. There are only two possible explanations for why it is there: that Christgau actually had the clout and audacity to review an album without using any words (possible but unlikely), or that he never actually reviewed the album. Therefore, the bomb should certainly be removed. It should also be noted that critics who utterly dismiss major albums and differ in extremes with most critical opinion are not usually afforded much attention (case and point: the New York Times and Sgt. Pepper). There are some exceptions, like Stanley Crouch and Bitches Brew, but in this case a critic offered NO EXPLANATION at all for his rating, so professional publications and encyclopedias cannot in good conscience site this review since there is no credibility without analysis.

By taking it away, what you are doing is blatantly censoring that piece of information (because you don't agree with it). Whether you agree with Christgau's rating or not, he is a well-known professional reviewer, therefore his ratings should be given regardless of whether he wrote a full review for them or not (he customarily doesn't write them when he doesn't think the album worthy), and regardless of whatever some Wikipedia editors may personally think of his opinions. I don't agree with his rating of this album either, but will never attempt to censor the fact that he rated this album very negatively (in fact, letting people know his bad ratings of albums like this may make some people question what they think of Christgau's opinions in general). 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are completely incorrect. This is not censorship in any way. Read and analyze the comments above more carefully, please. This is not an issue of what Wikipedia editors personally think. Please, lay aside your rhetoric about "censorship" for a moment and look at the heading; it says "professional reviews." A review is a written piece, an opinion, with WORDS that attempts to analyze and comment upon a creative work. Christgau's "bomb" rating is not a "professional review" in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever. It is a symbol, a grade. To act as if a "bomb" IS a "professional review" is a complete defiance of reality and makes no sense whatsoever. In putting a Christgau "bomb" under the "Professional reviews" section, you are radically twisting the commonly accepted defitinition of "professional review" to fit your own personal definition, which is POV and goes against wikipedia policy. I don't care what Christgau's personal standards for grading albums are, they do not take precedence over the definition of "professional review." Had Christgau actually REVIEWED the album, then his review could certainly be included. FURTHERMORE, it is not even clear if Christgau DID write a review, or if the bomb simply appears on his website. So please, you are wrong on every aspect of this debate. I will remove the bomb and I expect no one to re-instate it without an EXTREMELY good reason because the argument I have presented is quite clear and straightforward.

If Christgau gave an A+ with no explanation, there would be no controversy whatsoever and this discussion never would've started. With influential/acclaimed albums (not only this one), there's always PoV edits made to the reviews (namely, removing the "less than perfect" ratings). You can propose removing these "dud" Christgau ratings at WT:ALBUM, but I pretty much guarantee it won't be successful. Spellcast (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You´re totally wrong. Nobody would wanted a empty link to a simple note, even A+, or any other. The question is that all "Dud" notes don´t explain at all why he disliked the albums. So, they are useless.Mistico (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What good is a bomb symbol? (or for that matter an A+ symbol). Why is it significant? This is the most important U2 album in 2 years, and arguably their masterpiece. That a symbol is included here simply because this guy's opinion is considered significant means nothing. Where's the value add to wikipedia? --Merbabu (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with it is that you can't tell if it is good or bad, without prior knowledge of the guy's rating system. Bearing that in mind, would it be better to replace the bomb with the word "unfavourable" - or add this in after the symbol? Ceadge (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Have edited as per the above. Ceadge (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted. Robert Christgau is a notable music critic, and he has his own rating system which is incorprorated by Wikipedia as seen on WikiProject Albums. It isn't our job to alter somebody's rating system; just to incorporate it into the article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion is to keep it, but to make it more transparent and understandable. It's preferable that people should be able to tell at a glance that the critic gave it a bad review, rather than making the reader work to find out that information - a bomb graphic means nothing to the unitiated. Ceadge (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I made it "more transparent and understandable" when I reverted. He explains in his review for Zooropa, the very next review on the page, what his feeling toward Achtung Baby was. I incorporated that criticism into the article, which you can see in the prose. Changing it from "dud" to "unfavourable" or a comparable term is unacceptable since it constitutes original research by putting words into Christgau's mouth. "Unfavourable" implies that there were at least some positive aspects to the album, but the actual review says otherwise.
Given that context has now been provided and entered into the prose, I don't see that there's any need for this four-year long discussion on the rating to continue. It's perfectly understandable as is, assuming that people the people looking at the ratings will actually read the reception section. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I still think the bomb is difficult to understand and is thus like jargon in graphical form, that said, I did not notice the clarification in the text, which does make things much clearer. Apologies for not seeing that when making the previous edit, and thanks for the clarification. Ceadge (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam Clayton's penis[edit]

...i keep hearing from reputable sources (eg Q mag), that Adam Clayton is revealing his penis in the cover art... Can anyone mention this if they know the details? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macca7174 (talkcontribs) 19:38 (UTC) 18 October 2006.

There is a bit of copy at the bottom of the "History" section. Clayton called it, "the fifth member of the band." The back cover of the CD insert--first column, third row--is a picture of Clayton full frontal. The current version of the insert has a large "X" over his groin. --Fantailfan 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Adam Clayton's penis appears unobstructed in european versions of the album cover. In the US, a large shamrock covers his appendage. --Laurencedunne 16:38 (UTC) November 9 2009.

What is alternative?[edit]

If post-1978 rock is not plain old rock, what rock genre is it an alternative to? Fantailfan 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is OK to have alternative there as Rock is also there and first. We could arguably also have Pop in there (ie, Mysterious Ways, and Trying to Throw Your Arms Aorund The World and even Ultra Violet, EBTTRT) but I am sure that would just cause arguments like any kind of genre classifying. :-) --Merbabu 23:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
(Violet, not Violent, I make the mistake too.) Alternative is a subcategory of Rock anyway. I just find it anachronistic before 1991 or so. It's like pre-punk. Fantailfan 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
At any rate, "alternative music" no longer has an article so I'm replacing it with "alternative rock". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought: although I'm not familiar with Madchester, it seems like (based on reading the Wikipedi article) it defines the sound of the album really well. It's a mix of alternative rock and dance music. But again, I've never actually heard anything that you can consider Madchester. Can someone who has please clarify if Achtung Baby would be considered Madchester? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Madchester acts would be the Stone Roses and Happy Mondays. I remember reading about Bono being impressed by the output of those bands circa 1989, however, Adam Clayton was sceptical about attempting to reproduce the sound and sensibility of Madchester. I think in the main those bands and those who were fans of those bands would be sceptical of very large internationally successful music acts such as U2, Bon Jovi, INXS etc etc, and as such I don't think you could bracket Achtung Baby with that scene (although if you could dig up sources, you might be able to cite Madchester as an influence on Achtung Baby, but in my opinion that's a bit of a stretch). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceadge (talkcontribs) 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious Ways[edit]

Someone described "Mysterious Ways" as having a "closer resemblance to conventional pop music of the time (1991)." This was included in the section about "new fans" which makes it a little suspicious. I personally cannot see any important similarities between "conventional pop music," which is a very strong and limiting term, and "Mysterious Ways." There are vague traces of dance music in "Mysterious Ways," but the song features bongos, wah-wah gutiars, layers of effects, and drum loops with rock guitars; overall, it is quite objectively not very similar to "conventional pop music" of 1991, which is a vague term in and of itself, but could be said to include urban R&B and dance not totally disimilar from today's dance, hip-hop and pop music. It bears certain similarities to successful then-contemporary bands like the Stone Roses or even Primal Scream, but these Madchester types of groups were certainly not "conventional pop music" either by their own admission or the admission of their audiences. Or to give another example, even though grunge music was immensely popular at the time, it could not be said to be "conventional pop music," since it's sound was so far removed from the most consistently successful kinds of pop songs. Again, I don't think this is nitpicking and I don't think this is a subjective issue at all.

Singles info[edit]

Is there any reason to point out the fact that certain songs were released as singles underneath the track listing for the album, when farther down the page there is a listing of the singles and how they did on the charts? If no one has any objections... I'm going to remove that comment below the track listing... Jgrizzy89 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Achtung, baby"[edit]

Is it just me or does this phrase never, ever appear in The Producers (1968 film), like everyone (including the article) says it does? It does appear in To Be or Not to Be (1983 film), though (during the very tasteful "Hitler Rap"). --typhoon (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Phew! finally someone else noticed this. The only phrase like this said in the Producers is "auf wiedersehen, baby", muttered by a drunk German. Watch (or rather, listen to) the movie, and you'll hear it. "Achtung, baby!" is from Mel Brooks' "Hitler Rap", which appears in the soundtrack to his 1983 movie, "To Be or Not to Be". Rogpat (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

She's Gonna Blow Your House Down[edit]

"There are also a handful of developed ideas that were wholly abandoned, such as "She's Gonna Blow Your House Down", a song the group had been working on since the Rattle and Hum days."

  • I'm too lazy to look up a source, but it was extensively reworked and released on the Pop album as "Wake Up Dead Man." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Dream it all up again"[edit]

I think it would be productive to put the speech Bono made at the final concert of the Lovetown Tour:

"We've had a lot of fun over the last few months, just getting to know some of the music which we didn't know so much about -- and still don't know very much about, but it was fun! ... this is just the end of something for U2. And that's what we're playing these concerts -- and we're throwing a party for ourselves and you. It's no big deal, it's just -- we have to go away and ... and dream it all up again."

Seen as it was definitive in that it signified U2's move to the new style of music on Achtung Baby, I think it's relevant to the article and could be put in the History section. I already have a reference - Sylar07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylar07 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea, but good to get your facts straight first. The speech was given at the December 30, 1989 show at the Point Depot in Dublin. There were actually five Lovetown shows that took place after that date: the New Year's Eve/Day show that started as the clock hit midnight in Dublin at the Point Depot the next night, as well as four shows that took place in Rotterdam in January 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposed changes on recording sessions' end[edit]

I see that you disagree with me adding details about last minute changes to "The Fly" and "One" in to the section about the end of the recording sessions. I would caution against reverting my changes, because as it stands, the bulk of the article is dedicated to background information/context prior to the recording sessions, and the bulk of the information about the recording sessions is dedicated to Berlin. If most of the recording was actually done in Dublin, we should try and put more information about it into the article to avoid undue weight. Furthermore, instead of stating something (e.g. last minute changes were made to the songs), it's better to give examples of something to prove it (e.g. The Fly was mixed over its previous mix, One had a guitar part added after production finished the mix). It gives more insight into how rushed the last day was and just what kind of changes were being made up until the recording sessions' last minute. I ask you to be open-minded about this being added to the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I "would caution against" against you reverting *my changes* and also against getting hung up on notions of undue weight - it doesn't mean you need to balance word counts. It's an article on an album, not on songs. Relevance or notability is not measured by word count. It's much better just to say "Most work was Dublin" and "It was more productive". We don't need all the rest, or the evidence. That's what we have song articles for. No matter how hard you try, you will always find more material and more notable material on the Berlin sessions than Dublin. The info on One is also trivial and long-winded (incidentally about Berlin) I tried changing the prose from a story-telling one but was "open-mindedly" reverted. --Merbabu (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Christgau review[edit]

The removal of the Christgau review is POV. He is a professional reviewer and his reviews are explicitly accepted by the music project on WP with full knowledge that most of his reviews are terse and some are ratings only. It doesn't matter that he didn't write any prose to support his rating; it may be his opinion that the album is not worth the time and/or effort to do so. Meanwhile, other U2 album articles include his positive ratings, despite being terse. That certainly makes it look like the dud rating for this album is missing because editors here don't like it. Protest all you want, but that's what it looks like.

Including the Christgau rating lets the reader decide whether or not to attach any importance to it. Omitting it introduces questions about the balance of the article. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

At least The Joshua Tree review has prose to describe his opinions of the album. As described earlier on this talk page, rating an album with a picture is just a value judgement, with no actual review. Getting away from Christgau, I honestly have not come across any negative reviews of the album. That is not to say that there aren't any. They are probably out there and just hard to find. But if we are going to address balance, let me pose a hypothetical scenario: if an album received 99 five-star reviews and then 1 two-star review, wouldn't it be a more accurate reflection of the album to omit the two-star review, since it received such an overwhelming majority of positive reviews? Introducing a negative review just for the sake of trying to cover all ends of the spectrum can be misleading, since it is an outlier. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Chrisgau's "dud" reviews rarely if ever have any prose; it's just his style. I don't think that makes the review any less valid. Regarding your hypothetical question, I don't think we should omit the two-star review because there are 99 five-star reviews. If the two-star review came from some outlier who wasn't recognized as a professional reviewer (or some other disqualification), then we would omit it. I don't think it's appropriate to filter the reviews to make them "reflect" the album. That's a slippery slope. We are not deciding truth, we are recording evidence, evidence that the reader can read and evaluate, and for albums that evidence includes ratings from professional reviewers. One such editor is Christgau, he's referenced extensively in WP, and specifically, his positive reviews are included in articles about other U2 albums. We don't need to decide anything for the reader, or protect the reader from reaching what we perceive is a wrong conclusion. We provide the reader with the evidence and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion.
It's time for me to drop this. I don't edit U2 articles much and I'll leave it to the U2-focused editors to decide. I hope you'll decide to include it because the article serves readers better with it. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to re-iterate, I'm not against including negative reviews, nor reviews by Christgau, but it just seemed like in this case that a worldless negative review for an album that has received mostly excellent reviews was questionable. I've looked through previous discussions in the WikiProject Albums talk page archive and the topic has been broached multiple times, but I think that it might be worth initiating a new discussion on whether we should continue to include reviews that don't have any prose (whether they represent a good or bad rating). What do other members of the U2 project think about this subject? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There's also this discussion. Oddly enough it ended up with those wanting the Christgau review accusing the others of POV and censorship. Who would have thought? --Merbabu (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
My arguments were not accusations of anything. Also, I think I behaved very reasonably, which I can't say for you based on your edit above. I edited the article once twice, and when reverted, I left it alone and brought the issue here. Lastly, I am not big fan of Christgau; I think it's quite likely that someone who reads an article like this with multiple high ratings and then sees a dud from Christgau may learn something about Christgau, about evaluating reviews, and about evaluating evidence in general. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we see things in the same light. "The removal of Christgau's review is POV." The most pointless thing about accusing, or more likely just insinuating bad faith or lousy editing, whether intentionally or inaderverntly is not that one might offend someone else or cause ill feeling, rather it just undermines our own efforts to influence people. --Merbabu (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
PS - rather than a "snide remark" it was just repeating exactly what you said, and a reaction to "protest all you want" which is a signal that you think you're right and that's all there is to it. I've learnt that putting oneself in a holier-than-thou position usually comes back to bite and makes me look silly. --Merbabu (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't accuse anyone. I said the removal was POV, but that's a characterization of the edit or of the article content, and not of a person. That's an important distinction on WP. Regarding our relative positions, you evidently think removing the rating is not POV, and you think you are right, which is absolutely no different than my position, just in the opposite direction. The "protest all you want" may not have been worded well, but the point was that the removal gives the appearance of POV because his positive ratings are included on other U2 articles, because his ratings are explicitly accepted by WP, because the material was sourced, etc.
I've given up on convincing people to change it. Now you come along and jump on the pile after the play is over. Nice grandstanding! — John Cardinal (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Of course I thought I was right. Why would I waste time arguing for something I thought was wrong? Sheesh. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Really nice. --Merbabu (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

The article was put up for peer review and we have had one detailed review already - here. I've pasted the review and my (as yet incomplete) responses below. I will update as necessary - feel free to comment. --Merbabu (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


  • I think it would be helpful to give the names of the four band members in the lead.
  • Should the video be mentioned in the lead?


  • "the album’s intended homage to American music legends was interpreted as the band's self-importance and them placing themselves as equals with the likes of Bob Dylan and The Beatles" - The phrase "them placing themselves' is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "the album’s intended homage to American music legends was interpreted as a self-promoting attempt to claim equality with the likes of Bob Dylan and The Beatles".
    • Awkward indeed. Not sure about the fix yet. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Towards the end of Lovetown Tour, Bono said... " - Wikilink Lovetown Tour?


  • "With a more contemporary feel, Bono later said the song was more in line with Achtung Baby." - Dangling modifier. Suggestion: "With a more contemporary feel, the song was more in line with Achtung Baby, Bono said".
  • "The band recorded "Night and Day" for the first of the Red Hot + Blue releases and Bono and The Edge contributed to the original score for the Royal Shakespeare Company's theatrical version of A Clockwork Orange and Bono later said that this early experimentation was "preparing the ground for Achtung Baby"." - Too many clauses. Suggestion: The band recorded "Night and Day" for the first of the Red Hot + Blue releases, and Bono and The Edge contributed to the original score for the Royal Shakespeare Company's theatrical version of A Clockwork Orange. Bono later said that this early experimentation was "preparing the ground for Achtung Baby".
  • "including guitar riffs" - Wikilink riff?


  • "Achtung Baby: The Videos, The Cameos, and a Whole Lot of Interference from Zoo TV" - This title should be in italics but not bold letters.
  • Does the list have to be numbered? Should it be preceded by a sentence saying what the list is? Shouldn't the "Interference" titles have a capital "I" but lowercase letters otherwise? Wikipedia generally avoids all caps even if the source uses them. Exceptions exist, but this doesn't look like one of them.
    • I agree with removing the caps, but not so sure about the numbers. But, I've replaced the numbers with bullets.--Merbabu (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
  • Citations 64 through 74 are incomplete as are some of the other citations. A good rule of thumb for Internet citations is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those are known.
  • What makes or its sources such as Hot Press reliable?
I understand Hot Press is one of, or is, Ireland's most respected Music publications. Is there any reason to doubt it? Or indeed, why doubt this one and not others. As for, here it is merely the source for the Hot Press article and I also read the articles on the site that are sourced from many other publications. Again, there is no reason that I can think of to doubt the content. If there is something specific, please let us know. :-) cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Is a second infobox normal? I'm not used to seeing more than one, and I'm not finding examples of music FA articles that use two. See Smashing Pumpkins, for example. I think the combination of the numbered list, the second infobox, which overlaps three sections, and the bolding make this last section look less polished than the upper sections. Also, the image in this infobox is oddly big compared to the small one in the first infobox. Perhaps the lead image should be bigger and this one smaller?
I removed the info box. From memory, the video had it's own article, and this section has all the appearances of an article being copy'n'pasted into this article. --Merbabu (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


  • The dabfinder tool that lives here finds two wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  • The link checker tool that lives here finds four dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article in an area of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) oth|Finetooth]] (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Achtung Baby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

the band made a deliberate change in musical and thematic direction with the album. - sounds wordy and somewhat vague. I know what you mean though. I think it can be worded better but nothing jumps out straightaway. Actually, see my next edit.
The band replaced their previous earnest image with a more ironic one. - a more specific adjective or two would be good.
I'm not sure I agree with the change that was made. The reason for the previous wording was that we said "they made a change musically and thematically", then we dedicated a sentence to clarify how they musically changed, and then a sentence to clarify how they changed thematically. The new wording doesn't seem to quite be successful at doing that because it starts by saying they changed their thematic direction (which is secondary to the music), and the sentence that clarifies that now is separated illogically. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I do think there is some unnecessary duplication and vagueness which can be combined into one sentence somehow. I suspect there will be some adejctives which can be used to stamp that it wasa purposeful change. How about "the band made the decision to changed direction musically and thematically..." Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think "deliberate" is redundant. The band's sound could have changed merely by means of evolving or stumbling upon something they liked, but in this case, they consciously tried to changed. What about using colons to show the connection of what I was getting at in my last comment? Stung by criticism of their previous album, Rattle and Hum, the band deliberately changed their musical and thematic direction for Achtung Baby; musically, the band incorporated alternative rock, electronic dance, and industrial influences into their work; thematically, the band replaced their previous earnest image with a more ironic one. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts I agree that "deliberate" adds something - still have two "the band" s - how about - Stung by criticism of their previous album, Rattle and Hum, the band deliberately changed their musical and thematic direction, and incorporated alternative rock, electronic dance, and industrial influences into their work. Thematically, U2 replaced their previous earnest image with a more ironic one. (mentioning the album is redundant as it is obvious what they are working on/in). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Putting an "and" in there seems to disconnect the following two sentences, as they qualify the change in "musical and thematic direction". It now sounds like they changed their musical and thematic direction AND they incorporated new sounds into their music. The sentence about musically incorporating alt-rock, industrial, and dance influences is supposed to be an extension of the previous sentence. What about this? Stung by criticism of their previous album, Rattle and Hum, the band deliberately changed their musical and thematic direction; musically, they incorporated alternative rock, electronic dance, and industrial influences into their work, and thematically, they replaced their previous earnest image with a more ironic one. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was not reading the last sentence as part of the whole. Still seems a bit repetitive. Stung by criticism of their previous album, Rattle and Hum, the band deliberately changed direction musically, by incorporating alternative rock, electronic dance, and industrial influences into their work, and thematically, by replacing their previous earnest image with a more ironic one. - is less repetitive, but is it too ungainly? (could also put an mdash after first "direction" Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
What if we split it into two sentences like so: Stung by criticism of their previous album, Rattle and Hum, the band deliberately changed their direction musically by incorporating alternative rock, electronic dance, and industrial influences into their work. The band also changed their direction thematically by replacing their previous earnest image with a more ironic one. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
While I'm glad the pre-GAN text is getting an update from "outside influence", there's a few problems here and it needs to be fixed. This was written originally based around the idea that both the music and the themes (lyrics) changed. And, of course there was the image change too. Now we are saying that thematically = image? Not quite – lyrics/themes are very different to image. There are three points that we need to distinguish and probably carry into in the lead:
  • the music/sound changed (we seem to have made that point OK),
  • something like “thematically it covered much more inward and personal themes (this is already in the prose and amply supported by countless themes)
  • The band’s image changed from a more “earnest” one to a more “ironic” one.
They're not the exact words I’m extolling, rather we need to be clear on the distinctions. Basically, themes and image aren't the same thing. I could just be bold and make the changes, but I await your responses. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
PS, so I've been bold and change the second of the next to sentences (and now more in-line with words in U2 article):
Stung by criticism of their previous album, Rattle and Hum, the band changed their direction musically by incorporating alternative rock, electronic dance, and industrial influences into their music. Thematically, it was their most inward-looking and personal record to date, and it was the start of the band’s early 1990’s replacement of their previously earnest image with a more ironic one.
regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to think the 3rd paragraph of the lead sufficiently covers the themes/topics of the band's lyrics and that we don't need to introduce it in the 1st paragraph. I'm not sure what word I would use to indicate the band's image changed (a la "musically" and "thematically"). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I missed this comment above - sorry. But I've fixed it anyway. And, I restructured it as it didn't make sense to have the lyrics and ZooTV/1990’s reinvention separated from the sound and image changes. (and it used the word thematically a second time! – but in reference to the lyrics not image as I think it should be).
I split it into four paragraphs for now. And now I realise, that this lead can be bigger as it’s a big article. There’s a number of ways it could be done, but each way should draw on the ample amount of text in the article. Possibly suggest either combine paragraphs 1 & 2 and expand the rest, or keep the 4 paragraphs. I’ve written a few long summary leads for long articles – see Suharto and Indonesia (an FA) for good examples.--Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to 4 paragraphs, but that version seemed to have important details disconnected from each other. I've gone ahead and made corrections to the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Update - lead has coagulated nicely now :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeking renewal and inspiration on the eve of German reunification, - 'renewal'? - not sure that word means anything here
but it was also the beginning of a backlash (against the band). - bracketed bit redundant, also repetitive with beginning of following sentence. 'backlash' within itself carries the connotation of against ...x.
felt dissatisfied --> "were dissatisfied"
I am not sure why Even Better Than the Real Thing is left out of the lead.
We could reasonably put it in there, but I didn't want to get too carried away. The other 3 singles went #1 on multiple charts, EBTTRT went #1 on one chart. I thought that was a reasonable qualifier. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay. 'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"his input was being diminished" - would be smoother and easier to the eye if this were reworded and de-quoted. Not a memorable quote in and of itself to warrant exact wording.
Yeah, we can definitely de-quote it, but I'm not sure about re-wording it. It seems to be a pretty common phrase in itself. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
could change 'input' to 'contribution(s)' if you want - important thing is to dequote. Might be too short to be considered a problem if unchanged actually. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Zoo Station" dramatically represents the band's reinvention. - sounds fluffy and vague. I don't think the article gains anything by its presence.
I would strongly disagree. As the opening song on an album that was a reinvention for the band, the song begins with a startling, distorted introduction, meant to make listeners think the record was broken or it wasn't U2, and the lyrics describe new expectations that band have. On its own, the statement doesn't mean much, but I think the following text clarifies it sufficiently. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
okay then, maybe think about streamlining with the next 1-2 sentences. I'd see the word "dramatically" as veering into POV though at a mimumum. If the intro is dramatic, link the word to that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we just remove the word "dramatically" and say "Zoo Station is one song that strongly represents the band's reinvention". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"can be read as a statement of intent and suggest new appetites and anticipations." - We've got "reinvention" (i.e. new direction), then "statement of intent" (? first of a bunch of songs which sound new (?), and "suggest new appetites and anticipations" (new direction (again?)) - I think this section is a little effusive somehow, sorry. I have been staring at it seeing how it can be worded in a more sober fashion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
How about "The opening track "Zoo Station" heralds the band's reinvention. With distorted vocal tracks and industrial percussion, its lyrics suggest new appetites and anticipations." (try to use "herald" to subsume "statement of intent") (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but does "herald" sound a little POV to you? Maybe something more along the lines of "announce"? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"announce" is fine. These ones are always tricky, trying to strike the right balance :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There are a bunch of web refs at the bottom (75-86) which are just links and need access and publishing dates and website info etc. I mention this as the article is shaping up nicely to go all the way to FAC. It is interesting and about the right size to get through. Nearly there for GA. Good work. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the certifications/charting references, which may still be a work-in-progress, I've addressed everything above. The only lasting issue is getting references for some of the new content Merbabu added. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Update - yeah I am satisfied it meets GA criteria now..I'll get to the housekeeping in a minute. I was also trying to give it a shove towards FAC. I think it is a good read and worth the effort. Well done all, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Album credits[edit]

It's 2009 and all my records, cassettes and CDs are packed away in storage - my mp3s are streamed wirelessly through the house. Thus, I don't have easy access to the album sleeve and booklet. Is there any resource on line - at the moment I'm looking to see if there is a track by track notes. I remember the songs Lillywhite mixed for JT are individually credited. What about AB? cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Song Producer Engineer Mixed by
"Zoo Station" Lanois Flood Flood
"Even Better Than the Real Thing" Lillywhite, Eno, Lanois Paul Barrett, Robbie Adams Lillywhite, Adams
"One" Lanois, Eno Flood Flood
"Until the End of the World" Flood, Lanois
"Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses" Lillywhite, Lanois, Eno Adams Lillywhite, Adams
"So Cruel" Lanois Flood Flood, Eno
"The Fly" Flood, Lanois, Lillywhite
"Mysterious Ways" Lanois, Eno Flood, Edge, Lanois
"Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World" Lillywhite, Adams
"Ultraviolet (Light My Way)" Flood
"Acrobat" Lanois Flood, Lanois
"Love Is Blindness" Lanois, Flood
Hope this helps. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A-ha - thanks. Hope that didn't take too long. Different songs, different mixers --Merbabu (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary style with songs[edit]

Much of the information on the songs in the "Composition" section needs to go in the relevant song pages. Keep what's necessay for contenxt regarding discussion of the album as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also just noticed that many of the charts positions and sales figures are uncited. This needs to be rectified immediately. You can do without the singles chart positions table; typically such a table is only included in album articles if there were only one or two singles that charted in just a few countries. This album had no less than five that were worldwide smashes, so best to leave that information to U2 discography. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added references (and in some case positions) for the charts where applicable, though I'd recommend swapping out some of those we aren't likely to find a peak position for (ex. Brazil) with one where we can (ex. New Zealand). I'm not sure who added all the sales figures but I'm guessing that the way that they did it was by taking the certification (all sourced) and multiplying that by the certification thresholds to get the number. Not exactly the best (or most desirable) way of getting the numbers, but understandable. In regards to the singles chart, I wouldn't really call 7 US charts "worldwide" =P. For an indication of that surely we could remove some of the US charts (Top 40 Main, Hot AC, Hot Dance Air) and replace them with figures from Australia and New Zealand. I don't really see how their inclusion could really be seen as detrimental to the article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Which info do you propose gets moved from the Composition section? While there could be some changes about what is listed and a general cleanup, there should be no problem about having a summary of the 12 songs, and I can see no real problem with length.--Merbabu (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
One example is the details about "Even Better than the Real Thing". None of them are essential to understanding the album as a whole, unlike, say, the details about how "Zoo Station" was intended to signal a new sound for the band when the album started. The details about "Even Better Than the real Thing" are more specific to the song than to the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
While I get the distinction you make, and perhaps it is preferable to have info more like the Zoo Station example you refer to, does it matter if it means we at least mention each song. Ie, I'm not saying we can't improve the section, but that there is nothing wrong per se with having a more song-specific mention. I think it's actually good to mention each song. They are each part of the album - that's enough for an inclusion (again, their inclusion can be improved though!). regards --Merbabu (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It primarily has to do with page layout and Wikipedia summary style. Knowing when to summarize and when to leave details to subarticles will help you achieve the "well-written" criteria at FAC down the line. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That's why One has but a few sentence's mention, but a longer article on itself? I guess it's the interpretation of detail and how to summarise - and indeed criteria 1a is notoriously subjective. For example - I don't propose "So Cruel" needs an article, but a mention of the song here is fine. As for interpretations of detail, I don't understand why an album article needs to list each track's running time - but changing that is not a battle I'm going to fight. --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The details about the songs are one issue. In general the article could be tightened up; it sprawls out at times. Compare it to In Utero (FA I wrote earlier this year) or The Final Cut (a current FAC candidate). If you're including information on a specific song, keep in mind what's necessary for context with the album as a whole, and what is better left to the article. The details of how the band wrote "Even Better" are best left to the song page; it doesn't inform the reader's understanding of the album as a whole, unlike the details about "Zoo Station". WesleyDodds (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've moved info from UV. But ultimately an album is only made up of songs.As I said - - i acknowledge the section needs work. I'm not sure why it's not in track order, for example. As for "sprawling" - most articles get bloated in parts then get tightened up. It's not going to be ready for FAC tomorrow.--Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

March 2010 update[edit]

My thinking is now more inline with WesleyDodds' now. Some of the info (eg, Acrobat's time signature) is just not relevant to the article on the album as a whole. And, I don't think we have to list every song if it's not relevant. We don't have to find something simply so each song is mentioned. Nor does it necessarily have to be in tracklist order. --Merbabu (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, same. The current content seems to be more about the individual songs than the album as a whole. It needs to be reworked so that it goes from one theme to another, rather than all spread out among the individual songs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to leave this alone for now. In judging the changes, please keep in mind that it's not finished! It needs a lot of tidying up and coherence needs improving - particularly to the latter half of the section. I can see things that can be removed, and bits that can be added. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm partial to the version we previously had. It described the musical qualities of the album as a whole, the thematic/lyrical qualities of the album as a whole, and then went through each song and went into relevant musical/thematic/lyrical qualities of them. To me, it seems like an impossible chore to try and weave tidbits about the songs into the relevant (and separate) discussions about the music and lyrics. You inevitably would end up talking about each song twice. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As you see above, there is quite some support for this. Today's changes have removed info that's really only pertinent to the individual songs and not the whole album. In theory, perhaps there is now room for additional info common to the album. --Merbabu (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Further, I don't mind so much having one or two songs mentioned twice if it's illustrating a different point. In the previous version we might end up mentioning each song just once, but we kept mentioning the same point throughout the article. "Song A is song about X. Blah blah blah - two paragraphs later - song B is also about X". --Merbabu (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the lyrics/themes, the album is often described as heavy and "most personal" etc. Bono i think even used the words "blood and guts" and "twisted". This is not so evident in the composition section yet. or is it? In particular "One" which the band have often referred to along these lines. It would be good to check that this has been appropriately addressed. --Merbabu (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Some notes on the prose[edit]

At the request of Merbabu, I'm looking into ways to tighten up the prose of this article to make FA status. I'll start with the header and background sections for now. I have a few questions about areas of the text which I think could be more precise:

Header: "U2 replaced their earnest public image with a more ironic one" - it's not entirely clear to me what it means to have a more ironic public image. What are we trying to say here, and can we say it more explicitly without taking up too much space?

Essentially, the band became more self-mocking and playful, and in many ways, more "hip". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Background: "U2's 1987 album The Joshua Tree brought the band critical acclaim, great commercial success, and high exposure, but it was the beginning of a backlash against them." - a backlash by whom? I would guess the critics, but they just earned critical acclaim, so I don't know.

Well, the album itself was renowned critically and commercially, but on the subsequent tour, and in subsequent interviews/public appearances, critics/detractors/music journalists began to see the band as becoming to self-important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Despite their level of success, the band were dissatisfied with themselves and took the criticism to heart" - what level? In what way were they successful (commercially?), and in what way not (critcally?). I am left to look at the citation, which links to an article that doesn't quite clear this up. Perhaps a new source would be helpful here.

The band had a level of success, such that the albums were selling, they were playing large sell-out gigs, they had been nominated for/won Grammy(s), and had been the winners of several readers polls in music publications. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"In reaction to the criticism, U2 began to search for new musical ground" -the criticism was a few sentences ago, we could use a reminder of what "the criticism" is

"Ideas not deemed appropriate for the play, including guitar riffs and keyboard parts, were put aside for the band" - try to avoid passive voice

The second and third paragraphs of this section in general would benefit from more transitions. The prose has a bit of a stop-start flow to it. I'll take a crack at smoothing it out when I get a chance.

More to follow. Feeeshboy (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Edge marriage breakup effect on album's themes[edit]

The article only mentions the breakup of Edge's marriage in passing, and doesn't make clear what effect that had. Yet several sources attribute much of the album's dark, personal themes to it. Consider for example pp. 73-75 of Conversations with Bono. I think the article is missing part of the story here. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Be Bold --Merbabu (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No way am I going to start beating my head against the wall on U2 album articles! Tour articles and the few song articles I've been involved in are more than enough ... I have an easier time working on articles about U.S. presidential candidates! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Pft - that's pathetic and to wikipedia's detriment. That kind of attitude is completely against the whole idea of wikipedia. You're way or (you're on) the highway? Seriously, if you don't have time to do it - then, fine. thanks for adding the idea. But it sounds like you're just having a little tantrum. Why not just get over it and add it? And, yes, it probably will be copyedited - but the overall result (to which you were a contributor) will be for the better. I mean, this is wikipedia 101 for God's sake - I don't need to state it here. Just add what you want without sulking (and yes, this is also partly in reference the crabby second part of your post here. --Merbabu (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Come on guys, let's not squabble. We've all had run-ins and editing disagreements with each other before, but there's no need for this. If there's something that any of us thinks is missing, is being overlooked, or should be added to, shouldn't we do it to make it as complete as possible? Yes, sometimes it's difficult to fit it in a logical and coherant manner, and that can lead to reversions or relocations to a different location in the article, or even a complete chopping down to only a fragment of what was posted due to misunderstanding or lack of clarity. We all have our own ideas of what is important and should be mentioned, but unless we take the step and actually try to include it, the article will always be incomplete or lacking (or both). We also shouldn't fret about adding something in if we can't find a reference for it; that's what Talk:U2/References was created for, so we can work together and add cites for information that one person may not have access to. So how about we just go ahead and edit as a team? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
All I'm trying to say, if someone has something to add into an article, then they should add it, rather than use it as an opportunity to convey another message. Perhaps I should have said it was a promising idea (although that would be implied in asking one to add it, surely?). --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree I'm at fault here, for saying on an article talk page that something or other isn't included and not being willing to do the work to add it myself. I too have given {{sofixit}} responses to people who do this in the past. But, at the end of the day WP is a volunteer activity, and none of us are compelled to do anything we don't want. And I don't want to get into any more edit battles on U2 articles than I have to, even if that makes me "pathetic". So I'll strike out my comment above. But I may raise it again if there's another FAC, because in that forum it's not considered bad form to raise objections without fixing them yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to criticise your raising it - after bold, suggesting on talk page is great. Others can do it. But, what bugged me (for what it's worth) was the sulky nature of your reason for not doing it - ie, the implication u can't be bothered cuz someone will just change it and because u2 editors are somehow difficult. Even if those latter two are correct, it shouldn't stop u. Or just ask someone if u can't do it for lack of time. --Merbabu (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so what would you add about The Edge's divorce? I know that he was going through a rough time and that it made him want to write more personal material. How would you enforce this point in the article? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it's a bad point, and I think the best thing would be to encourage "Wasted" to make the addition. Perhaps I didn't put it quite the best manner. In fact, I'd even say it is as equally important as the so called "one" breakthrough. It could even go into the lead. Personally, I find it hard not to sometimes feel that the One breakthrough is over overstated band folklore. Ie, not actually bullshit, but an overemphasised good story. If you've been following U2 since the mid 80s like Wasted, you'd know that they are good at milking a great story. --Merbabu (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd go as far as to de-emphasize the "One" story. The band may be good at propagating their own myth, but almost all reliable secondary references mention "One" as the album's breakthrough. It would probably be original research to suggest the song wasn't as important as these resources say it was. As for weaving The Edge's divorce in elsewhere, I'll try to do that the best that I can. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It would work well in talking about the themes of the album; many of them relate to Edge's emotions at the time, and I seem to remember hearing somewhere that it affected Bono's lyrics to a degree too (I think in "So Cruel" particularly, though IIRC he later denied it was about Edge). It also plays a role in Composition. In U2 by U2 it's stated that the solo at the end of "Love Is Blindness" cae from Edge releasing all of hs frustrations and just destroying the guitar in the process. There's quite a few relevant placs where the info could be worked in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to vet this information - I just added a mention of it in the Writing/recording section, mentioning how it was among the things that hurt morale. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some contradictions?[edit]

I've begun a copyedit, and it's struck me that there may be some contradictions in the text. In Background, it says "Following the tour the group began its longest break from public performances and releases." But in the very next paragraph it says "More hints of change were two 1990 recordings...". Would not those two songs count as a release? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, both were quite low profile releases - particularly the clockwork orange work - in fact, it was only Edge and Bono and it wasn't released til the The Fly single came out. Passengers had the profile of Michael Jackson's Thriller in comparison. --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we just need to clarify that the break was from releasing albums and performing? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One inspiration[edit]

I had removed the Dalai Lama note as being the inspiration for One with and edit summary. Personally, I read it as being the other way around - ie, the song/lyric came first and Bono then used in a note to the Dalai Lama. Even if the note did come first (note my scepticism) the source is not at all clear that it was the inspiration for the lyric. It is also the only source I know that mentions it. And, indeed, is it about the song or the album - surely it's the former and thus is actually a discussion for the song page, and removal altogether from this album page is preferable.

It was re-added here with an edit summary that doesn't address my edit summary for removal.

I see a few options

  1. Find a reliable source that clarifies the story and adjust the article accordingly.
  2. Remove the Dalai Lama mention altogether - it's a single source some 15 years later after the event and it's completely unclear what is meant. (indeed, I think it means the opposite of what's written).
  3. Write it in such a way that it doesn't say it was the inspiration and provides the same vagueness as in the source.

No. 1 is obviously preferable, but I'm thinking it's not going to possible, and 2 is more preferable than 3, particularly given that this story - whatever way it was intended - is not really relevant to Achtung Baby as an album, as opposed to the legendary (mythical?) "One breakthrough" which is pertinent to the album. Of course, it would be relevant to the song article.

In the meantime, I've put in a verification needed cite. And, the appropriate changes will need to be made to the song article too. --Merbabu (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Dalai Lama/note mention and instead replaced it with a mention of what Bono was trying to say with the line "One, but not the same" (e.g. he disagreed with the hippie's idea of oneness). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that’s a good change. I just don’t think the source is clear either way – although, if I had to chose one way or the other, I would say that the note came after the lyric. And, it is Bono’s word afterall… --Merbabu (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Legacy section[edit]

I'm concerned that the legacy section is a bit bloated. It's essentially a list of lists. Or perhaps it's just the middle paragraph that's problematic. Can we trim that down? Or even put them all into a table or list of lists? Ie, this section...

Achtung Baby has been acclaimed as one of the greatest albums in rock history. Publications have placed it among their rankings of the best records. In 1993, Entertainment Weekly placed it at number 28 on its list of the "100 Greatest CDs of All Time".[112] It has appeared on several Q readers' polls of the greatest album; in 1998, it was ranked number 15,[113] in 2003, it was ranked number 10,[114] and in 2006, it was ranked number nine.[115] The Q staff named it the third-best album from 1980–2004,[116] and similarly, in 2008, Entertainment Weekly called it the third-best album of the previous 25 years.[117] In 2003, Rolling Stone ranked the album at number 62 on its list of "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time,"[118] while the National Association of Recording Merchandisers placed it at number 45 on its "The Definitive 200" list.[119] In 2005, it appeared on Spin's list of "100 Greatest Albums, 1985–2005" at number 11.[120] The following year, the album appeared on a number of rankings, including Hot Press's "100 Greatest Albums Ever" at number 21,[121] the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's television program My Favourite Album at the 33rd position,[122] and NME and The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums' list of best records at number 40.[123] That same year, Time included Achtung Baby on its list of "The All-Time 100 Albums".[124] Music television channel VH1 ranked it at number 65 on their "100 Greatest Albums of Rock & Roll" program in The Greatest series.[125] The album appeared at number 36 on USA Today's 2003 list of the top 40 albums of all-time.[126] It was listed as one of U2's four records in the music reference book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.[127]

--Merbabu (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Having a table/list is exactly what the previous review opposed. They specifically recommended it be converted to prose. I had the same concern you do. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, a list was merely a proposed solution to what i saw as a problem. If the solution offered is not favoured, it doesn't, unfortunately, mean the problem has gone. --Merbabu (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind trimming it a bit, and perhaps combining the section with Critical reception so that it becomes Reception and Legacy. Keep it strictly to the usual music-related sources; do we need to list all three Q reader polls? It seems pretty obvious that they'll hold the same thing every several years and get different results. How many is too many? Do we really need to include USA Today, My Favourite Album, and The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums? Keep it to the most important music sources. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I trimmed down a few of the less important sources. I think the Reception and Legacy sections should stay separate, though. I think it's important that the tour be mentioned before touching on the Legacy, as the album and the tour go hand-in-hand in discussing the legacy of the band's reinvention. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you think I trimmed this down enough? To be specific, I took out the 2 oldest Q readers' polls, along with the USA Today, My Favourite Album, and Guinness/NME rankings. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks better than it did, yes. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It's still something of a "sea of numbers" that doesn't make for an engaging read. But I guess it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source for the first sentence Achtung Baby has been acclaimed as one of the greatest albums in rock history, and many publications have placed it among their rankings of the best records; doing so should allow much trimming of what follows. Uniplex (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
How does this source look to you? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Not great, I'm afraid—it seems (and claims) to be based on a press-release. A book or a quality newspaper cite would probably do it though. Uniplex (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
One solution: remove the mentions of the lists, and keep the references to put next to the end of the sentence. That should fulfill both the "greatest albums" part and the "many publications" part. I seriously doubt there will be any individual source out there which backs up "many publications have". I cannot see an individual citation working, but a collective should. Perhaps reword to ''Achtung Baby has been acclaimed as one of the greatest albums in rock history, and many publications, including Rolling Stone, Q, and NME, have placed it among their rankings of the best records (or whatever influential musical publications you want to use). Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. It would be nice to keep some date context if we can; also maybe avoid picking names. How about something like Achtung Baby is acclaimed as one of the greatest albums in rock history: since 1997, a wide range of music and mainstream publications have placed it among their rankings of the best records. with the "is acclaimed" representing the more recent dates. Uniplex (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea, but I'm concerned that by eliminating the years, list names, and rankings, you're losing most of the context about the rankings at all. There seems to be a trend in the album's appearances on lists that shows it gradually moving up over the years - whether or not that's my imagination, I'm not certain. But I think having that information available to the reader is important. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 19:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, though I think there's a danger of trying to read too much into the lists, especially as they usually have different criteria. The lists names (and click-throughs) would all still be there in the refs. Uniplex (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
So, in light of the clarifications to the guideline on album lists that are being made, I still want to keep some select appearances on lists mentioned. These would be across a wide range of years and two of them would feature quotes from the articles. Here's what I'm proposing:

Achtung Baby is acclaimed as one of the greatest albums in rock history, and many publications have placed it among their rankings of the best records, including Q, Entertainment Weekly, Hot Press, and Time. In 1997, The Guardian collated worldwide data from a range of renowned critics, artists, and radio DJs, who placed the record at number 71 in the list of the "100 Best Albums Ever". Rolling Stone ranked the record at number 62 on its 2003 list of "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time", writing, "U2 visibly loosened up on Achtung Baby, cracking jokes and even letting themselves be photographed in color". In 2010, the record topped Spin's list of the 125 most influential albums in the 25 years since the magazine launched. The author said, "Unlike Radiohead with OK Computer and Kid A, U2 took their post-industrial, trad-rock disillusionment not as a symbol of overall cultural malaise, but as a challenge to buck up and transcend... Struggling to simultaneously embrace and blow up the world, they were never more inspirational."

I still thought it would be appropriate in the opening sentence to mention which publications have specifically ranked the album so that we attribute where the claim that "many publications" is coming from. Further, I didn't think we needed to set a date that the ranking began, since we can't be certain when the album's first appearance on a list was. As far as I can tell, the first time it was ranked among the best albums was actually in 1993, but there's no way to verify that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 15:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I very much like that. I think you've struck the right balance there. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
RS's comment seems a little superficial, being on the sleeve, not the music (of course, it was this way before), but other than that, it's looking good. Uniplex (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Woman as spirit"[edit]

There's a line from the "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)" article that strikes me as intriguing: "Ultraviolet" is also one of several songs Bono has written on the theme of woman as spirit". Indeed, many of the album's songs are ambiguous and left to the reader's interpretation about whether he is addressing a woman or a religious spirit/God. I haven't come across concrete citations of this, though, but I feel a line about it would fill out the religious imagery paragraph of the Composition section and tie it together. Has anyone come across a source about this? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The "true" peak on the Dutch album charts[edit]

The current peak position on the charting table for the Dutch album charts says #39, although this is inaccurate. If you examine the reference and click to the album's profile page on the Dutch Charts site, you can see that this position was in 1993. I strongly believe that the album re-charted following the release of Zooropa in 1993 and that the album's true peak occurred right after its original release in 1991-1992 and that it was much higher. After all, it was certified Platinum, so I tend to doubt it reached only #39. If someone could look into finding the album's "true" peak on the Dutch charts, it would be extremely helpful and much appreciated. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking but no luck so far. I get most of my sources from magazine databases, most of which are U.S. magazines that don't bother listing international charts. If you happen to know of a particular magazine that might have had this information back in 1991, then let me know and I'll see what I can do. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I found a reference that can verify this. There was a user on the forums (fill in ukmix in place of "replace me" who was looking up Dutch charting histories for any artists that people were requesting. He said he was using his Dutch Chart Book to look up all this information. According to him, every U2 album since The Joshua Tree has gone to #1 in the Netherlands (and this website further verifies that Achtung Baby went to #1). I went to Google in search of a book that would have this information, with no title in mind. And I stumbled upon a book called Albumdossier: 1969-2002 by Johan van Slooten, an author who has published numerous books with Dutch charting history information. The description seems to indicate it lists all the number-one albums in the chart's history and all the number-one albums for significant artists, U2 included. The only problem is I have no way of finding a specific page number for this book. There's no online preview and it's not readily available in any American library. For now, I am just citing the book. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Page 438, highest rank #1 Joost 99 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (another step taken in making the most perfectly referenced article ;-)
Thanks so much for the help. If I need help referencing another U2 album in the future, can you identify the page number for me? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but I can tell you now that the book was sorted by band, and all the entries for U2 were on page 438. Joost 99 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's even better. For my benefit, could you list the peaks for their earlier albums? As I understand it, everything after The Joshua Tree peaked at #1. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
October #23 (19), Boy #30 (5), War #3 (35), Live-Under a Blood Red Sky #8 (44), The Unforgettable Fire #4 (66), Joshua Tree #1 (82), Rattle and Hum #1 (72), Achtung Baby #1 (46), Zooropa #1 (30), Pop #1 (31), The Best Of 1980 - 1990 & B-Sides #1 (119), All That You Can't Leave Behind #1 (76). Between brackets is numer of weeks in list. Joost 99 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, once again! Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 13:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Track listings of the new reissues[edit]

I put the full track listing of the upcoming 20th Anniversary Reissues, but met with an immediate reaction against it. I understand and respect the opinion, but I don't agree that the full and detailed tracklisting "overwhelms the article" – and deserves to be only as collapsed lists. That's how are they're releasing it all – and the article is just the place to desribe it further, eg. which tracks are from which singles and which are "previously unreleased" and so forth (which I intended to do next). So what do you think? Should we leave or to collapse the track listings? Can we vote on that here? Thank you. – Kochas (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many formats being released and each format has many discs/records, each of which has a different track listing. Not including the Achtung Baby or Zooropa albums, here are the track listings that exist:
  • B Sides and Bonus Tracks (Deluxe)
  • Uber Remixes (Super/Uber Deluxe)
  • Unter Remixes (Super/Uber Deluxe)
  • B Sides and Other Stuff (Super/Uber Deluxe)
  • Kindergarten (Super/Uber Deluxe)
  • Uber Remixes (Vinyl)
  • Unter Remixes (Vinyl)
So that's seven different track listings that could be listed, but that doesn't even include the DVDs. If we included those two (Videos, Bonus Material), we're now up to nine. That's just a little too much. In articles like The Joshua Tree, it wasn't an issue because we were only talking about one bonus disc (not seven). We can't pick and choose which ones to include or omit because they're all equally notable. It's either all or nothing. And "all" is just way too much. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As the person that removed the information, I agree with pretty much everything Dream out loud said. The track listing section, in my opinion, simply became too large - the original track listing of the album almost seemed to get lost among all the other information. The 7+ track listings for all the bonus discs seems to fall under WP:NOTEVERYTHING - that is, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of all information. The only way I would agree with having all of the information in the article is if it was all collapsed by default, and even then, I still think it's just too much. I think The Dark Side of the Moon handles a similar situation the right way, in that the prose briefly summarizes the contents of the different reissue formats. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 11:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All right, my proposal – here. Tried hard to find proper templates for the collapsing, which turned out surprisingly almost impossible, and eventually came up with nice and neat collapsed lists. For the tweaking I used two list templates I could find and test, one within a second one. But, template-wide, there are some missing solutions left yet for different lists types, eg. DVD 3. Feel free to edit or add to the proposal and/or share your suggestions here. Thank you. – Kochas (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts were to use the {{tracklisting}} template and then have the "collapsed" attribute set to yes. Perhaps that would be a better solutions? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there really a need to include the Zooropa and Zoo TV Sydney tracklistings? There's already a link to both articles, which already have it. Adding them here is overkill and unnecessary. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, yeah, Y2Kcrazyjoker4, guess you're right. The best way here would be to actually use the template you're mentioning, despite that I really hate the quasi-table shape, so I tried so hard to avoid it... And, Melicans, it's not natural for me either, but I guess this would be consistent to just mention all the discs' features, and then Main-article link to certain articles like I did in my sandbox. Should we vote on that? (Pity only three people are watching this space.) – Kochas (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see what the information looks like as several track listing tables before we vote on anything. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 12:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with putting all the track listings in collapsible boxes? The info should be included somehow. --Merbabu (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're all welcome to contribute to the listings I started over on my sandbox here. Let's agree on a shape first, fill up with titles and then put in the article. Any additional comments to the details would be welcome under the "sketch". Thank you. – Kochas (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks nice, but it just doesn't fit well in the article. It would make the article look like a discography entry. The only way I think this would work if there was a separate article for the 20th anniversary edition. In that case, I'd say go for it. But at the moment, the reissue is not notable enough on its own to have an article. If anything, I think we should expand the prose to mention some of the songs in the release, but not have a section with eighteen different collapsed track listings. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the collapsed track listing boxes appear to be the best option to me - by defaulting to collapsed, they don't get undue weight and they match the track listing table for the original album. We could also limit the track listings to B-sides (noting discrepancies in individual tracks for the various formats in notes next to the relevant tracks), Uber, Unter, Kindergarten, Videos, and Bonus Material. I'm still of the opinion that we can skip all this, but on the other hand, having 6 collapsed track listing boxes in a subsection of the Track Listing section would not be completely unreasonable. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 13:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Guys, if you really think it all is too much, we can omit: • the repeated B-Sides listings (two extra tracks from Deluxe on Super/Uber Deluxe) and put the description in brackets inside the listing; • Zooropa listing (by just mentioning its appearance), and the • From the Sky Down and • Zoo TV videos, by simply putting the links and/or their prose description. Also • the vinyls should fit as prose. I'm putting another nice and neat proposal in a bit, and it should satisfy everyone. – Kochas (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was bold and formatted the CDs as it would appear in the article, based on the Super Deluxe and Uber editions. This is what it looks like. DVDs and Deluxe CD not included. I've reverted back to the way it was before; just made the edits so everyone could see what it would look like in the article proper. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wowzers, those tracklistings alone add 8 KB? That's more than I thought. It doesn't look too bad in the article. I am a little leery of having so much prose beneath the "Track listing" section by moving the "20th anniversary releases" section beneath it. In my opinion, it makes more sense to include those track listing boxes in the "Track listing" section, perhaps just in a subsection. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes; and that doesn't include the regular Deluxe bonus CD or DVDs 2 and 3, which would probably bring it to about 10KB more total (a lot of that is the template fields and formatting too). My thought regarding the move of the anniversary release in my test edit is that it doesn't make much sense to have all the bonus disc tracklistings before the actual album tracklist (I feel the same about The Joshua Tree in that regard). I thought it made more sense to have the album proper and then all the bonus disc tracklistings, rather than the other way around. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a nice job, Melicans. I'd say we go for it, but yes, the tracklists as a subsection of the main tracklist (and the prose part moving before the main tracklist). Plus, there are a few corrections needed - I preferred not to touch your edit because I was affraid I'd spoil the current article before we have compromise: • the names of the remixes are actually yet parts of the titles themselves, eg. "Even Better Than the Real Thing (The Perfecto Mix)"; • instead of writing: B-side from "One" single, we can better just say: B-side of "One"; • total lengths should be in minutes. If everyone is okay with the lists, let's give them a go. – Kochas (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on the track names. The way the WikiProject has done it in the past (see all the tracklistings in the single articles, Melon, etc) is the song name proper (ex. "Even Better Than the Real Thing") and then the name of the remix in the 'note' section. I'd rather stick with the style that we have, which essentially renders it in the same way, then change it in one article. All the B-side/A-side stuff was just based on the way it was in The Unforgettable Fire article, which I copied the template from for simplicity. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've done a second test. This one has the 20th anniversary prose above the tracklisting proper, and then the actual 20th anniversary tracklistings in subsections below. The only way I could think to do it and make some vague sort of sense is by giving each release (Deluxe, Super Deluxe/Uber, 4-LP) it's own subsection. Deluxe is included on it's own because it contains a mix of tracks from three SD/Uber CDs, and in a (mostly) different running order. Zooropa, From the Sky Down, and Zoo TV Sydney are not included because they have their own articles and I think it would be redundant to include them here as well (they are linked in the prose above). Some songs ("Night and Day", "Satellite of Love", Lemon", "Paint It Black", etc) are linked multiple times because the track listings are collapsed, and they will be useful/necessary in the event that people check 4-LP and not Deluxe, etc. (It is not a case of Overlink in that event). Sides A-D in the 4-LP vinyl are the regular "Zoo Station" through "Love Is Blindness"; I had them originally but removed before saving, feeling it would be redundant to include them again. All tracklistings added are collapsed. This edit added 14k characters, over 10 Kb to the article's length. I'm aware of some simple format errors I made while doing this (timing missing for "Alex Descends Into Hell", improper linking to the "Stay" article). Apart from the massive size added to the article, my biggest reservation is that Track Listing has one subsection (20th anniversary); something that is supposed to be avoided. I couldn't think of any other way to render it though, with the 20th anniversary prose appearing above the track list. Overall thoughts? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Considering the complexity of it all, I think it's implemented pretty well, but again, my concern is that it's all too much. I recommend reaching out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums so we can get some additional editors to weigh in on this discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
So is there any dedicated discussion on the subject yet in the Project, or I look in the wrong places? Could any of you put a link here? Thank you. PS. Looks like track listing of Back to Black is similar case, and somehow no one was opposing. Just saying... – Kochas (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't look like any separate discussion has taken place yet, and it would probably make sense to just link the WikiProject Albums to this page, instead of starting another discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 19:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

- All I know is that I came here looking for the complete tracklisting for the boxset, and it's a glaring, frustrating omission. That is exactly the kind of information people want in these articles, and I think you guys are too wrapped up in semantics and guidelines to realize you've left out valuable information. Many, many articles list complete tracklistings for all editions. Just use collapsible lists; don;t see the problem there. - Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. This one looks good for me, but it needs some revision like this (and I don't think that we need rare LP stuff here):

20th anniversary release

Deluxe edition[edit]

Super Deluxe and Über Deluxe editions[edit]

   CD Disc 2 — Zooropa album (51:19)

   DVD Disc 1 — From the Sky Down — A Documentary (74:00)

   DVD Disc 4 — Zoo TV: Live from Sydney — The Concert (118:00)

Promo singles[edit]

The article thoroughly discusses the five commercial singles from the album in the Release section. However, there is no mention of the various promotional singles that were also released: "Zoo Station", "Until the End of the World", and "Salomé". Should we make a (brief) mention of these as well? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that mentions them as promo singles, then yeah, it could be mentioned briefly. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 04:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
What I did for "City of Blinding Lights" when briefly mentioning that promo was just reference the single itself. The PID/Catalogue number generally shows that it is a promo (looking at two at random, the Wild Horses and Zoo Station promo PIDs both begin PR, for example). Will that suffice? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think so - what is the PID exactly and where does it come from? Like, can I look up a release by PID somewhere to find out what the release is? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 05:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I just use the archives on U2wanderer for when I fill those refs. They have it by decade (here is 90-98 for instance; it includes all the promos, not just the promo singles). Here is the one for "Salomé". The PID is "Catalog" on there. PID stands for Publisher's ID. {{Cite music release notes}} describes the field as "The publisher's ID (catalog number) for the release that corresponds to the notes, requires Publisher field" (the publisher being Island, Interscope, Mercury, etc). Generally speaking, the catalogue number can be found somewhere on the release; usually the side (on a jewel case) or the back. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


As "Achtung" is a German word, shouldn't the pronunciation be "ˈaχtʊŋ" rather than "ˈɑːktuːnɡ"? Or is there any contextual reason for mispronouncing the word? (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"One of the most acclaimed records of the 1990s ..."[edit]

See WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Who measures and compares how much acclaim each record of the 90s received - is there some official yardstick for this? I don't see what these kind of vague yet boastful statements add to the information already in the lead about the critical and commercial reception the album was given. N-HH talk/edits 09:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Title pronunciation[edit]

The album title includes the German word "achtung" but in the context of the album title, it's not pronounced the same way as it is in German. If you've ever heard Bono or anyone else speak the title's name it sounds like "Aktoong" (not "Axtun" or "Achtun"). I originally included the "English-ized" IPA pronunciation (and even cited it from an article where the album's title written in a dictionary-style pronunciation format), but it was removed (along with the citation) and replaced with the German IPA pronunciation. The German IPA pronunciation of "achtung" is already in the prose, so there's no need to include it in the lead sentence just because it's a German word. If there's no objections, I'm going to revert to the original IPA text that I added. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

20th anniversary reviews[edit]

Should there be reviews added under the section 20th anniversary releases? The Unforgettable Fire page has the deluxe edition reviews but that article isn't a Good or Featured one so I wasn't sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultra Violet Light (talkcontribs) 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced claim: "...greatest rock albums..." / " rock history..."[edit]

Are the lines I just tagged for needing a citation actually verifiable or are they an assumption based on the four all-time albums accolades mentioned in Achtung Baby#Legacy (those by Q, Entertainment Weekly, and Spin are top albums lists exclusive to ~1980s to 2000s), none of which are rock lists. Which I suppose wouldn't matter anyway; such a claim ("regularly"?, "in rock history"?) requires a source either way that states it explicitly, and I couldn't find one in a quick search for "Achtung Baby" + "greatest rock albums"/"best rock albums". Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I can replace the EW ranking with one from last year that is not exclusive to a specific time period, but rather is for all time. Still, I'm not sure what your contention is. Are you questioning whether the album has indeed been acclaimed as one of the best ever (if so, I can provide several more accolades in a draft in my sandbox)? Are you saying the language should be changed to something closer to "the album has been acclaimed by many critics as one of the greatest of all time" (not specific to rock, not mentioning any regularity of appearing on rankings)? Or are you suggesting both? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 05:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Are there any sources that explicitly say it has been viewed or ranked as such by critics, several, many, or whatever? That would be the best solution--to cite such a source--but "several" seems more appropriate, since "many" suggests an indefinite number, which if were the case there'd probably be sources that could explicitly verify any version/wording of this claim. And yes, since none of the sources are rock-specific, the "rock history" bit seems a bit odd. "The album has been acclaimed by several critics as one of the greatest of all time" gives proper weight to the rankings mentioned; "many" is a bit more of an exceptional claim and should require a source (WP:EXCEPTIONAL). Dan56 (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
How does the current version sound? It addresses your concerns, and it doesn't use "some" or "several" (which could have been interpreted to fall under WP:WEASEL). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 15:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
IMO, "several" isnt really a weasel word; since it means "more than two or three but not many", seven critics (I counted in 'Legacy') for example would be "several critics" since their a countable, definite number, whereas "many" would be weasel if not stated by a source since it means "larger but indefinite number". Perhaps qualify "writers and critics" with "several writers and critics"? But I'm fine with your revision, and good work expanding that section! Dan56 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Achtung Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Achtung Baby/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 06:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Achtung Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Title a play on "Ice Ice Baby"?[edit]

It seems pretty obvious - the song was released a year and a half earlier - but I see no references around that make this connection. NjtoTX (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it. The explanation given in the text seems the most plausible one. And is referenced as such. If you find an article that mentions the influence, by all means include it. Karst (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it either, let alone would I call it obvious. Does any album or song title that tacks the word "baby" on the end owe Vanilla Ice royalties of something"? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 17:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Achtung Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)