Talk:U2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleU2 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 4, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 15, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 23, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
July 31, 2010Good topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Featured article
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Prosify the Charity work information. DONE

Perform thorough copy edit (improve prose and flow). DONE

"Past Members On The Infobox Dispute"[edit]

We all know that the band U2 had 2 different names when they started out. Within those different names there were also 3 other members. Now, the issue is having those 3 other "early members" getting a reference in the infobox as "past members." It just doesn't add up, here's a live performance from when they hadn't released their first EP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe6VtCRTvsU Even in this live performance I cannot see the other members and if I can't seem them here what makes you think I am going to see them anywhere? So, the point is why have a largely exposed infobox that has a reference to these others members and then have audacity to label them as "past members." Rebound55 (talk)

What do the sources say? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Your cherry picking of a random performance from a random point in the band's history is your justification for your argument? I'm sorry if you think the article should ignore the time before the group was called U2, but this is an encyclopedia. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 22:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article should ignore the time before the band was named U2, because I acknowledge the fact that those 3 other members were from U2, but before they became U2. I never completely deleted them from the article so how am I ignoring their existence in the article? Also, me cherry picking a random point in a band's history is still more reliable than the sources you've provided for below. So according to your logic, a website that contains a written source is more reliable than what we humans can see with our naked eyes.Rebound55 (talk)

I'm sorry, what did I cherry pick? I apologize if I did something untoward, but really I was just asking a question. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck, there are 3 people to consider as part of your question:
  • Dik Evans - was at the first practice on 25 Sept 1976, and remained with the group until March 1978. He was much a founding member of the group as Bono, Edge, Larry, and Adam.
  • Ivan McCormick - was also at the first practice on 25 Sept 1976, wrote in his diary on that day "Joined a pop group with friends and we rehearsed". Another entry on Oct 9/10 in his diary said "Rehearsed all day in the music room at school." Around that time, before their first gig, Adam told him he couldn't remain with them because their show was in a pub and he was too young (a lie, as the other were too young as well). And that was that.
  • Peter Martin - sources don't agree on whether Peter was there. Most accounts, such as a Larry in the U2 by U2 biography and Ivan's brother Neil, mention Peter's guitar and amp were used but he couldn't play and was going to be the manager. In a recent interview, Ivan can't remember Peter actually being at the practice. Island Records' bio of U2 mentions Peter as a founder. Either way, no sources seem to indicate him being involved in any capacity beyond the first practice. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 22:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources in the past members section, there's no reason to remove a link to it in the infobox, although it is not a recommended practice. The usual practice is to summarize the contents in the infobox rather than link to it, unless that content would make the infobox inordinately large. Removing it completely is not appropriate.
If there is a question about who the former members are, that's a different matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

When it comes down to it where is the link provided for Dik Evans? The questioning of Peter Martin being in the band or not and the link that you mentioned does not directly state that he was a founder. So you feel like this justifies your reasoning for putting them on the infobox and labelling them as "past members?" Listen, there isn't solid concrete proof to give such members grand exposure as "past members." It all seems too abrupt and impulsive and in a way kinda desperate. Not too mention what you once told me, this is an encyclopedia. Then why exaggerate such a far-fetched idea which will lead to deception among readers.Rebound55 (talk)

In other words, those sources are too tenious to even have those members in the infobox labelled as "past members." Also, Peter Martin's eradication shows that you're just adding fuel to the fire. It's like a flying vehicle in auto-pilot going berserk without permanent control.Rebound55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rebound55:. C.Fred warned you a few hours ago about being engaged in an edit war. You don't seem to understand what that means. I have reported your behaviour to the an3 board. If you take a look at the contents of the page over time, that content has been there for a while (just like it wasn't there for a long while) and there's no need to make a change to it right now. Back off and wait for other editors to come to WP:CONSENSUS rather than impose your opinion on the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to branch off for a moment, does anyone think that it's worth mentioning in the Members Section that the band has basically consisted of the same lineup for 40 years. That has got to be some kind of record! There are no other bands at their level or above who have never had a lineup change. Not even The Stones! Even if you decide that they did have a lineup change - by dropping a few members when they were still finding their footing - they've never had to replace someone. In fact the only other well known band I can think of who have never had a lineup change are ZZ Top. Keeping a band together is a very hard thing to do at the best of times. Managing to do it for 40 years, during which many great bands have come and gone, is something to be very proud of and, as such, it might be worth pointing out? Just a thought... FillsHerTease (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove the "Past Members" section from the infobox and have the information placed lower in the article, As there was no "Past Members" when they became U2, it's quite deceiving - February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemccauley (talkcontribs) 21:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be possible yes. I agree that U2 had no prior members. You'll have to achieve consensus though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And how do I go about doing that Walter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemccauley (talkcontribs) 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We discuss it and when enough people agree, we can apply the change. That has not yet happened. There's no timeline to achieve consensus though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I would reread Talk:U2/Archive 8#Early members, as this topic was pretty well covered before. The band's history began in 1976, at which time the band began as Bono, Edge, Larry, Adam, Dik Evans, and Ivan McCormick. They were there from the beginning. Ivan left a few weeks after they began, and Dik left in March 1978. But they are unequivocally early members. However, their tenure with the band was so short, so minimally covered in retrospect, and prior to the band being named U2, so for that reason (and because of disagreement on whether they should be shown in an infobox for a group currently named U2), they are currently not given the same "billing" as the long-time members, and instead linked to in the "Band members" section. The Beatles article handles the same situation for 2 early members of that band in the same way (although those 2 people were actually in the band at the time it was called the Beatles). I see no reason to change things. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 02:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

U2 gig in the line U2 in Berlin[edit]

Hey Y2kcrazyjoker4,

do you wanna tease me? you wanna deteriorate my edit rating?

In my point of view, in terms of marketing, this gig was interesting. I guess it's quite unusual a band got a name like a rapid transit line.

It belongs to the article.

Any comments? Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In terms of marketing, it may have been. In terms of notability and reliable sources it wasn't. I would have reverted if Y2kcrazyjoker4 hadn't. Tschüß. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Walter Görlitz,
thx for your comment.
My statepoint is the German newspaper FAZ's website is a reliable source.
Do you wanna say, the German newspaper FAZ's isn't a reliable source?
Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Your source, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/u2-spielen-in-der-berliner-u2-ein-ueberraschungskonzert-15327688.html, is from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which could be a reliable source, but that entry is a fluff piece and doesn't meet RS. Compare it with this piece. It has a byline (author) where as yours doesn't. It is lengthy, while yours isn't. U2, and other bands, have pulled many such stunts. Unless it's widely publicized, it's not really encyclopedic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article for 2018 U2 Experience + Innocence Tour[edit]

Feel free to add content to this new article > Experience + Innocence Tour

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no new article. There is not currently enough content to meet WP:NTOUR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Alternative rock" genre ? in the infobox ?[edit]

Could you provide reliable sources, advancing that the band were presented as an alternative rock band by critics ? What I mean by reliable sources are high quality sources from music historians, music articles (like Spin, Rolling Stone, Mojo, Uncut ...), or high quality websites (like Pitchfork). I am sure that we can find dodgy material supporting that they were alternative but so far, I have not seen yet high quality sources saying that they can be presented under this label. It is subject to discussion. The March 2018 version of the FA article said that they were inspired by some elements coming from alternative bands in the early 1990s but it is not enough to make an amalgam and present them like this. Woovee (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

All of U2's output from the 1990s would fall under alternative rock. There's many references that say so. They even won a Grammy Award in 1994 for Best Alternative Music Album (Zooropa). Not sure what the controversy is.
I hope that settles it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 21:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Judging by the poor quality of your sources bar Spin's, their belonging to the "alternative rock" genre is not frequent at all. Note that Allmusic, Pitchfork, Uncut, Q magazine, Rolling Stone have never presented them as a alternative rock band.
Would you have other sources ? I have never seen them cited as alternative rock in the British press in the 1990s and the 2000s by any famous papers either.
The Grammies is a ceremony entirely financed by record compagnies and the band's compagny, this is not enough. It's not a quote from a impartial article/journalist.
Advancing a 1992 article from "Toronto Star" without providing a quote from the actual paper, is not helpful. And Toronto Star is not a high quality source to talk about music and associating genres with bands, do they. They are not recognized by other famous music journalists for their work, otherwise they would be cited.
"alternativenation.net" is a poor source and it is a blog/website. I asked for high quality sources, please and the url of alternativenativenation ends with "dot.net" and not "dot.com" which means that it is not a professionnal website recognized as such. Its wp:notability is poor.
The Spin source is the only one good source and it is going to be included in the article but it comes from a very recent article, dated 2012.
We need quotes from pop music historians, like Simon Reynolds, Tony Fletcher, Clinton Heylin... Woovee (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you aren't satisfied with these references or that you just disagree, but Spin is plenty reliable. What difference does it matter when it was published? Also - judging a website solely based on whether it is .com or .net is pretty unfair.
All of this is also completely ignoring the band's earliest days as post-punk/first wave of alternative rock...
Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 03:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I had asked high quality sources but these ones are not.
The washington Post source is taken from an article about another band Live (band), it is not from a paper about U2. Really, if "All of U2's output from the 1990s would fall under alternative rock. There's many references that say so.", why do you submit this link ?
Allmusic doesn't work either in this present case. See WP:RSMUSIC, it is said about Allmusic; "Biography/reviews prose are reliable, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose", and U2 is not mentioned in the prose of this article about 'alternative rock'[1].
"Ohio.com" source is from 2017 and it may be a case of a writer taking a wrong information on wikipedia and reproducing it on a professional website, like Spin's source which is also very recent and is in part a copy/paste of this wiki article;
Are there U2 fans who could provide sources of the 1990s, 2000s mentioning them as alternative rock ?
The fact that very famous music papers Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NME, Uncut, etc don't qualify the band as alternative rock as do music historians when writing articles/reviews about U2, is problematic and raises questions. Woovee (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
How do your high-quality sources describe the period of their career that Y2kcrazyjoker4 is discussing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
U2 are presented under the umbrellas of: 'post-punk' for their early years, 'rock' from 1987 in the articles and also 'rock' for the 1990s and beyond in all the articles that I have read about them in the British press (eclectic influences is one thing, making an amalgam with those influences to add a genre is another thing). If long-time contributors of this article don't know sources from famous music-papers & music websites (published in the 1990s, 2000s), dubbing the group as an alternative rock band, one can wonder if the alternative rock tag is appropriate Woovee (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
So now you're accusing a reputable writer for the Beacon Journal and Spin- a high quality source by your definition-of plagiarising Wikipedia? Without any proof? You've really gone off the deep end. I'm not going to engage with you on this subject any further because you are going to find something to complain about or some reason to disregard any reference I have to offer to this conversation. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 02:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Can people have a conversation without getting emotional. I wrote it May be a case, I didn't write it "is" a case, so please, do not create melodramas to avoid replying to a reasonable concern..Woovee (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like their entire career. Wikipedia guidelines are to respect not just one period of a band's career. This has been discussed on the talk page of Template:Infobox musical artist (see also its archives). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I note that you only found out 2 sources Spin and "Ohio.com" and they are from 2012 and 2017. Which means that previously, before year 2012, the "alternative rock" genre was included in the infobox of this article and this was not supported by reliable sources. This is why I wrote that these 2 recent writers may have based their work on this wikipedia article to consider U2 an alternative rock band. A lot of famous journalists read wikipedia as part of their research when working, I don't know why it is insulting reputable writers to mention this.
I let you both a few days to find reliable sources from the vaults associating the band to the alternative rock genre. If you can find in your documentation high qualitysources of the 1990s and 2000s dealing with U2, that would be great. One sees that Y2Kcrazyjoker4 and Walter Görlitz are long time contributors of this article which means they know well the subject [2] and will be able to source material associating the band with the alternative rock genre, as one of them asserted in this discussion this: "All of U2's output from the 1990s would fall under alternative rock. There's many references that say so.". We look forward to reading them. Woovee (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
What are you on about? There is no hint of emotion in my response simply factual response to your comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Substance (rather than form), please. Woovee (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Irish or British band?[edit]

This topic has been discussed before but without a satisfactory conclusion. Is it fair to describe this group as Irish, unqualified? Two (half) of the members are English... in addition to this "Bono" not only has a eyebrow raising Dublin Anglican background himself, but has accepted a so-called "knighthood" from the British monarchy and is pretentiously described as a "Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire." (!) Their output is also completely cut off from Irish musical culture and they take their influence instead from British and American pop "culture". We need to clarify this British aspect more clearly in the introduction. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that call them a "British" band as opposed to an "Irish" band? For instance, AllMusic avoids the point. The summary indicates that they formed in Dublin, Ireland but states that they set records in British music history. Rolling Stone indicates that the band consists of four Irishmen. We can try to impose external preferences, but we should do what the sources state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Bono's accepting an honorific title 30 years into his career cannot retroactively change the country of origin for the band he has been a member of, that is just ridiculous. This topic has been covered ad nauseum, so I recommend consulting a previous discussion on this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 01:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)