Talk:U2/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Would anybody mind awfully if I took the flag down? I recently removed the Union Jack from The Clash and I think the same argument I used there applies here as well. Flags seem more appropriate on say national football teams and the like. U2 are a national symbol of Ireland, but I do not see them as being particularly nationalistic; indeed they are internationalists. --Guinnog 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

good idea. 'lower' the flag please. Merbabu 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done it. --Guinnog 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I actually DO mind and I'm putting the flag back up. It seems pretty "dumb" to say the least to take the flags off of the Clash's and U2's whilst leaving these high profile bands's infoboxes with their flag. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Regards, Billtheking 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done for listing all those examples, but there's the small matter that we don't use Wikipedia itself as a reference point. - Dudesleeper 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Snow patrol also has the flag [19], If you where truly interested you would take that flag off, seeing how its controversial in its own country and not even official, with half the population pretty much hating it.

Dudesleeper, it is obviously some kind of wikipolicy to place flagicons in the infoboxes with famous bands. ATM I have seen no real/valid reasons as to why the flag should be removed. The reason why it should be up there is to illustrate the bands origins in an aesthetic way. That is why it is obviously done at ALL the other bands. Billtheking 08:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any such policy and I don't find it aesthetic. On the other hand I did find WP:FLAG. Furthermore your edit seems to be against consensus. --Guinnog 08:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, and Larry Mullen, Jr. all can have flags on their pages but U2 cant? Are you going to remove all the flags of all the famous bands pages, or are you just going to keep doing it at U2? Billtheking 08:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You speak of consensus, yet on ALL the other prolific bands pages there is the obvious consensus of the flags being there. As to calling you dumb, that was not my intent and I apologise, it just struck me as a weird idea. Billtheking 08:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"indeed they are internationalists." That doesn't say a whole lot, RHCP see themselves as Californians, yet you don't see the bear in their infobox right? Billtheking 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about RHCP's flag here but about whether this article on U2 should have one. The state of one article should not influence the state of another, unless a policy or guideline exists to point in a particular direction. I'm not convinced that is the case here. Wikipedia shouldn't be self-referential or operate on precedent, but on consensus formed by discussion. See also this. --Guinnog 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
hear, hear - we are not talking about any other article. As i said in my removal, precedence the worst justification for anything. Yes, you are correct - people's support for removing something from this article, doesn't mean they are interested in removing it from others, nor is their any obligation to do so. Merbabu 09:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You honestly believe that is worthy of an encyclopædia? Do you know the term uniformity and what it means for Wikipedia? Billtheking 10:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe what is "worthy of an encyclopedia"? Look at it this way... should we do something, no matter how pointless, simply because it has been done elsewhere? If it adds no value then it should go - even if it does no harm. It's a flag. What benefit does it give the article?Merbabu 11:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do I get the idea that it is not a good idea for the lay-out and contents infoboxes (of similar articles) to be changed at random?? Shouldn't we have uniformity? As I said, the flag illustrates in an aesthetic way the country of origin. Billtheking 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's aesthetic at all. Flags in the infobox are too prominent and draw the eye away from the text. - Dudesleeper 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are in the minority seeing how pages from American presidents to Kofi Annan and Bono have flags, do you see them being removed? No, but for some freakish reason 3 persons here seem to dislike the Irish flag on this page. Billtheking 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem getting you past comparing with other articles. Therein lies the problem. - Dudesleeper 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict: :Please discuss this article. Yes, i think changing other U2-related articles would be a good idea, but I have refrained from this as no doubt it would be pointed out that this is a violation of WP:POINT. Merbabu 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how WP:FLAG is not a policy, isn't there some sort of request for a new policy or something alike on band userboxes? Billtheking 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy idea that I know of, but it would be a good idea on not using the flags for the infoboxes. It will bring up issues that are certainly not needed on Wikipedia. We already know where they are from, why need a flag to denote it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear. I've attempted to kickstart a more centralised debate at this page and I hope you may feel able to join it. --Guinnog 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, I have never heard U2s music let alone bought their records but I am rather intrigued by them.I have heard that the parents of two members are British -the parents were 1) a professor of English who took up a post at Trinity College Dublin 2)another moved his family to Ireland to become head of training for Air Lingus-he had been head of training for British Airways which meant -at that time- he would have been originally a senior Royal Air Force officer.The Mount Temple Comprehensive was a British style school and was known locally (wrongly) as The British School At this school they met two British boys from Northern Ireland -the Mullens whose grandfather had been a Bishop in the Irish Church of England .Paul Hewson had a father from Northern ireland and a Catholic mother.He obviously preferred a British style education to an Irish catholic one. The rock music they played was at that time overwhelmingly a British creation

--None of U2's parents was a Professor in any University. Adam's father was a pilot with Aer Lingus. mount Temple comp was non-demoninational school which was rare in Ireland of the 1970s. Bono's father was Catholic and from dublin, his mother was Protestant. That means NOTHING about his own preferences of education. Please read up on thing before you make ridiculous claims. I can go into this at greater length but I feel you would be better served by actually rteading up on U2.

I am puzzled therefore why they are so much considered an "Irish "band.They have more connection with Britain than Ireland surely ? If you disagree you must admit they cant really be called an Irish band -"international " is a reasonable choice

It is also strange that nothing is ever written about this,or their families.Every one knows everything about the Beatles and many other pop groups but nothing is available about their families or brothers?sisters? most presumably living and working happily in England ? If anyone has any information I would love to hear it. I am interested partly because these are boys from frankly at that time,rather snobby professional backgounds and very British at that-yet we never hear about them-its all kept a secret I have sometimes wondered if the U2 name -of the famous spy plane-was connected to the idea that their families were actually spying for the British in some way...Its a thought!!!Aberdale 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Grammy awards

This was recently added.[20] I don't think it is necessary. In fact, is there already such a list on wikiepdia? If not, it can be created and the article directed there.Merbabu 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Campaigning section is now LONG AND BORING

I've expanded the campaigning section as was requested during the FA nomination. Please give it a look-see and ADD REFERENCES for me (only fair, because chances are I've added a reference to your writing, if you've written for this article!). Wikipedia brown 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is VERY long. I'd say almost too long. While this would suit an article on Bono I think it overwhelms other more important musical aspects. Ie, there is only 1 or two short paragraphs on Acthung Baby and The Joshua Tree. What they did as a band is actually quite limited, apart from playing many benefit concerts over the years. I am not sure though that just listing them is the way to go. For example, I suggest the Nicaragua visit should go in the Joshua Tree bit as it's significance was not really campaigning but its influence on Bono had a huge impact on the Joshua Tree (so he reports anyway!). PLease don't misunderstand me, this section is a whole better now after the expansion and no doubt involved a lot of work/time (THANKS!), but it probably needs some refinement and polish. I will have a look soon myself. Merbabu 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if the solo work section of campaigning was sent to the individual articles, and the other stuff tightened up a bit. That should make it short enough that it doesn't overwhelm the article. As for the Nicaragua visit influencing JT, I think there really needs to be that section called "Style and Themes" where it is discussed or this should be mentioned under the Joshua Tree subheading of the History section. The reason is that I think this section should be about U2's humanitarian work and should not have any specific information as to how their campaigning or travels affected their music. By the way, no need to say thanks Merbabu, the satisfaction of having written something that somebody someday may find useful is why I do this. Wikipedia brown 06:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Current FAC

This is the second time this article has been nominated in only a few weeks. Both times it has been done unilaterally and without consulting other editors. It is far to premature and i doubt very much it will get FA. If it does, then FA is meaningless. On the other hand, the current FAC is getting a lot of useful comments and attention, the majority of which i believe should be implemented. (while the peer review process didn't get much feedback at all). Please consult other editors before nomination again. thanks Merbabu 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I really should've consulted folks before nominating. Looking back, there were two reasons I didn't think to do it. #1, someone had nominated earlier without any discussion, and #2, the comments that came from that FA nomination led me to believe that by just fixing the problems highlighted there, it would be clockwork to get it through the process. I wish more people had weighed in in that first nomination to highlight the structural flaws with the article. If they had, I wouldn't be so quick to nominate it again. Anyways, I was a bit too overzealous (and naive in thinking that it was so simple to make an article a FA), and for that I apologize. Wikipedia brown 06:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise. I will respond further in the next day or so. I think we can get it there, but needs lots of work. At least the two FAC's (particularly the most recent one) did give us good ideas. Merbabu 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


There seems to be a fair bit of disagreement over what the info box should contain. I have two issues:

  • My opinion is that the info box should show the band members main roles. This is fundamental information – I’d suggest even more so than a list of albums or formation dates. Thus, such a prominent position is justified. There is, to my knowledge, no other mention of this in the article. The only justification so far given is “every other article is like this” – well, precedence is the dumbest of all reasons – why should we do something nonsensical simply cos others do it? Also, a recent reason for its omission was that people "disagree" on it content. its amazing what conformity (as distinct from a valid reason) can justify.
  • However, I do not believe that Bono’s harmonica playing should be there. This a rare thing when considered over the band’s whole career. I can only think of 3 songs where the harmonica is used. One of those songs hasn’t been played for almost 20 years, one was recently resurrected and then put back out to pasture (Running to Stand Still) and Desire, well it’s common enough but doesn’t mean that Bono’s harmonic playing is actually a notable role for him. He also plays tambourine or maracas on the odd song, and both Adam and Larry play keyboards on one song on the last tour. I doubt anyone suggests we should put those in. The inclusion of the harmonica gives it way to much emphasis, giving the wrong impression. Wikipedia does not have to list EVERY fact, only NOTABLE facts. Its inclusion pro--Merbabu 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Their main roles should go in the main text ("vocalist Bono, guitarist The Edge..."), as is the standard elsewhere. Their less-prominent roles should go in their own articles. Your going with "common sense" over the infobox guidelines opens it up to abuse, which is largely what you're doing. - Dudesleeper · Talk 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, accusing good faith editors of "abuse" is not the most effective way of influencing them. Perhaps you should make the changes to the main article, rather than simple deletions. having said that, precedence is still the lousiest of justificationsMerbabu 04:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The article was fine as it was until you had your brainwave. Unfortunately, your gratification over your brainwave is clouding your correct thinking. I've stated my case (based on protocol), so I'll delete as necessary. 'Night. ;) - Dudesleeper · Talk 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
My 'brainwave'? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Merbabu 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to simply put "vocalist", "guitarist", etc. in the main article and have nothing in the infobox that more accurately defines the band members' roles. Even in most of the bands' CD booklets, the roles that are listed in the infobox are as they are listed in the booklets (minus Bono's guitar-playing, which isn't very crucial). I don't see the big deal that Dudesleeper has with keeping the specific roles within the infobox. I suggest he finds something better to do with his time rather than sitting at his computer and throwing a hissy fit when someone touches "his" precious infobox. Cry about it, seriously. - RattleandHum 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to know IF YOU can change the Main Picture. It's an awful out of focus photograph. We're talking about the best Rock Band in the World,so the picture must be equal and not less.

Influence section lacking?

there's a list of artists that have made cover versions of their songs, presumably the one's who's covers were a bit more famous or well known, yet, no where does the article mention mary j. blige's collaboration with u2 with 'one' which charted pretty well.... any explaination? Jgrizzy89 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be notable in its own right, but is it really notable to the story of U2 and hence to this article? Merbabu 05:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the cover version of The Chimes notable? Because if it is, than the Mary J. Blige cover version definitely is. Especially because The Chimes are seriously only known for about two songs. Plus the fact that Blige won Grammy Awards three times and is widely known as the "Queen of Hip-Hop Soul". That seems more a bit more influential. However, The Chimes' cover version did go to number one on the chart, I think it might still be worth noting U2's influence stretches even to R&B with someone with high credentials in that realm... It's up to whoever else feels it good to add. I will not add it if there is any controversy over it... U2 is definitely not mine and I will not make that kind of executive decision... : ) Jgrizzy89 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
duly added (although, we need to monitor that only notable performers go in there - not every high school band and church group who ever covered a U2 song - lol) Merbabu 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Although it would be fun to laugh at some of the crappier covers that are out their (With Or Without You by the Christian Rap-Duo GRITS) - I think it would take forever or be near impossible to do that... Jgrizzy89 04:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Need to come up with a consistent format for citing U2 by U2

I see:

McCormick (ed), Neil (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, pp.46-48. ISBN 0-00-719668-7.

U2 Limited (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 151. ISBN 0-00-719668-7.

Adam Clayton:U2 Limited (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, p.147. ISBN 0-00-719668-7.

The Edge U2 Limited (2006). U2 by U2. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 151. ISBN 0-00-719668-7.

Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, Larry Mullen Jr U2 by U2, pg. 249, 2006, Harper Collins, ISBN 0-06-077675-77 (mine, oops)

These are all the same book. Since it is listed as a "source", can't we change all of these to "McCormick (ed), 2006, pg#"? Wikipedia brown 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. it was pointed out in the FAC that since these books are referenced in full in the general links section, that they only need referencing like this: McCormick , Neil (ed), (2006) p. 6 Merbabu 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure I didn't mention before and you guys dumped it, but U2's first product was a set of badges ordered from Better Badges in the UK in 78, saying "could happen to anyone" They are illustrated on this page. At Better Badges at the time, we ran under the slogan Image As Virus - Disease As Cure an informal punk equivalent of the GFDL. Bands submitted artwork, ordered a few, and then we disposed of as many as possible, and encouraged reproduction. These designs were very much in that spirit. Joly (ex=BB) Wwwhatsup 11:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sound Files

Sound files that are here should be chosen to directly support what is being described in the article - they should not be chosen simply cos they are great or very famous songs. They should contribute context to the written information, not be there to show off U2's most famous songs.

We have four sound files of which i think two are a good, supportive choices. ie, Sunday Bloody Sunday and Vertigo are both representative of the hard hitting sound strived for on their albums. Furthermore, SBS has that political flavour of the War album while Vertigo has that "boys and their rock'n'roll" sound to it.

The other two, Pride and One, although great songs, are not good choices. Being the most conventional U2 sound of their respective albums, they do NOT showcase the new sounds, ie the basic idea, of either of these albums. I suggest they be changed. For the Unforgettable Fire, I suggest "A Sort of Homecoming", or "The Unforgettable Fire". They are both more representative of what is being said about that album. As for Achtung Baby, One doesn't represent that album's mood like "Zoo Station" or "The Fly", or maybe even "mysterious Ways".

Does anyone know how to create new music files? --Merbabu 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. I think "Zoo Station" would be a wonderful track to represent Achtung Baby especially since it's the intro track to the album and thus represents quite an abrupt turning point from their 80s albums. Not sure about Unforgettable Fire, maybe the title track or perhaps even MLK! I definitely think we need a track from Joshua Tree as well, maybe "Still haven't found what I'm looking for" or Streets.
I've never unfortunately produced an ogg file. Kristbg had created some of the other ones, perhaps we can delicately supplicate him to help out on this. Wikipedia brown 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to work on it this week. I suppose "The Unforgettable Fire" and "The Fly" would be the best choices - both were singles, both are representative. --Kristbg 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are the best choices I think. They relate to the articles. The Fly is probably better than Zoo Station as although they both have that industrial sound, The Fly has more of a dance feel to it. Many thanks Merbabu 12:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a question for those of you who are a part of this discussion... Are you thinking of creating/attaching a music/ogg file for each one of the band's albums? If so, I would think that I Will Follow, Gloria, Lemon/Numb, Gone, and Beautiful Day would represent each one of those albums pretty well. If not, 'twas only a question :) Jgrizzy89 20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And for The Joshua Tree, I would think that With or Without You would be the best showcase of that album... just a thought Jgrizzy89 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest not - four files is ample. Merbabu 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Done! However, I couldn't figure out how to keep the text box in that section with the new sound sample without cluttering everything up, so I removed it. Maybe we could put that quote into the section text? --Kristbg 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pride" is worth including for its historical context because it was the band's first American Top 40 hit. The page should also have one of their earliest singles, and definitely something from The Joshua Tree.

No, not necessarily. Four files is ample so you have to chose carefully. The four shown clearly represent important stages of the bands development. Putting Pride or Joshua tree track in is basically saying "look at how big U2 are". Merbabu 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
PS, thanks to Kirstbg for the new files!!! Merbabu 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, you can have a number of sound files as long as they fulfill Fair Use guidelines. There can definitely be more than four if need be. Part of fulfilling Fair Use is the use of the clips for commentary. Yes, that commentary can include "this is here because it was the first single from the album and their first American #1 hit". Look at how Pixies, Sex Pistols, and The Smashing Pumpkins handle soundclips. It doesn't have to be just "this is what they sound like". WesleyDodds 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be pushing it but I think it'd be a pretty good idea to include a song from every album, to offer a piece from every U2 sound-period -- every U2 album, especially after their first three albums (which were pretty post-punk) has its' own sound. What do you guys think...? RattleandHum 04:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not every album (I personally think you can cover the Boy/October period with just one clip), but listing notable songs as well as emblematic songs would be helpful. WesleyDodds 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You have a point...perhaps for the Boy/October period, we can put up "I Will Follow". For The Joshua Tree, I think "Where The Streets Have No Name" would be pretty good..."Desire" for Rattle and Hum, "Lemon" for Zooropa, "Discotheque" or "Staring at the Sun" for Pop, either one of the four singles from All That You Can't... ("Beautiful Day", "Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of", "Elevation", "Walk On"). Should "Window in the Skies" be included? Any other idea? RattleandHum 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Especially since the direction U2 took after Achtung Baby on each album was very different from the preceding one. But truthfully, I don't know if a representation of every change would be necessary for people trying to get a taste or a type of representation of U2's 'general' sound. If someone wanted it for anything else, like purely to hear their sound scape, can there just be a page of samples? I don't even know if that's possible under the 'fair use' policy, but I'm just throwing it out into cyberspace. Jgrizzy89 05:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't do a separate page for soundclips. However, we can create a new section that discusses the band's sound and influences (which we should do). Look at the one I made over at The Smashing Pumpkins for an example. WesleyDodds 05:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
We could start by getting actual comments by the band as their influences, then work through some critics' (widespread) thoughts and opinions on style, and then pull what ever else we can muster, it might be a while before it's actually up to par though... I'm on board though! Jgrizzy89 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
There are other ways to improve this article without plastering it with ugly and awkward sound files. To have one for each album is just pointless, and it is much more pointless to simply put the hits/singles here as suggested a few posts above. This music is everywhere, this is an encyclopedia, not a juke box. If we MUST have sound files, the ones currently there (SBS, UF, The Fly, Vertigo) are well chosen cos they are representative of major changes and themes outlined in the article. Posting Streets, Staring At The Sun and Elelvation and Windows is just a listing of singles and adds no value. If you MUST put them in the song pages. If any are missing then maybe Mofo or something that is representative of U2 at that time, and not just cos it is a 'cool song'. But then, 4 is already ample and the article will only become weighed down. Merbabu 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Word Usage

I don't necessarily think the word usage for the statement under their activism section that says: "The ONE Campaign, has been shaped in no small way by his efforts and vision" is worded properly... Couldn't it just say: "The ONE Campaign, has been shaped by his efforts and vision." ? It just sounds better... Any objections? Jgrizzy89 05:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I went ahead and made the change. Since I wrote this section, I don't think there have been many changes. I think it's a good idea to review it (shorten it if possible) and maybe even move the Solo work stuff to separate articles, since it doesn't really apply to the band. Wikipedia brown 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Instruments, and why they shouldn't be listed in the "members" section of the infobox

This has to be spelled out, apparently. From the Infobox musical artist template (italicised emphasis my own):

Current_members (groups): Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names.

- Dudesleeper · Talk 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thinking RattleandHum's input on the matter will be minimal to say the least due to his/her affinity for removing any kind of conversation put his/her way.[21]

but why keep deleting anyone's further input WITHIN the article, listing full instrumentation? yes, true, let us keep the info clear of it, but let's have a compromise, wouldn't you agree? what has been put anyway is what appears in their CD booklets, there really is no reason to delete it. 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Musical styles and themes

Guys, I haven't seen much in the way of activity on this page in the last couple of days, so in order to stir things up a bit (I do love playing the role of the rabblerouser), I've added a first stab at a styles/themes section. Please feel free to add, refine, and remove detail as you see fit. I will add references shortly. Hope to see some constructive edits made to this much-needed section! Wikipedia brown 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are not blogs.

A cucumber is not the same as a pickle. So what? What does this mean? Please elaborate. (and sign your posts with 4 tildes). Thanks. Wikipedia brown 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Article moving up in google rankings / main picture

Just noticed that the article is now the second non-google link in a Google search. It used to be third under We're moving on up. Just wish we had a better main picture (with Larry actually playing drums). Speaking of which, I found this (potentially better) picture on Unfortunately you can't see Adam's face and it's not as high res as the one that's there. Please let me know if you think this would make a better picture, and I'll email the guy who took it to see if he would creative commons license it. Otherwise, I was thinking we could splice together a bunch of pictures of each bandmember. Thoughts? Wikipedia brown 19:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a great photo (except for the fact that Adam's face is virtually blocked...yes, I'm that nuerotic, hahaha...); shows the energy of the band live, which is a crucial part of their staying power. The current picture is blurry and rather dull...I vote for this photograph as the main picture, can it be done?

RattleandHum 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in a fit of utter uber-boldness, I changed the main picture to one provided to me by Zachary Gillman through email (sorry it's a different one than the one above that you seemed to like RattleandHum!). I think it too is a wonderful pictures showing all 4 band members (faces intact), playing their regular instruments. Kudos to Zack for the great eye and camerawork. Anyways, I've uploaded it, and I'd appreciate it if anyone can tell me if I used the wrong tags. Basically, Zack asks only to be credited if the picture is used. Please let me know what you think!!! Wikipedia brown 05:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job, although I do find myself wondering what is up with Bono's hat. WesleyDodds 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is that old, shitty picture back up? It's so blurry, it's awful.

RattleandHum 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia image-nazi deleted the image because I only had permission from the author to use the image on Wikipedia and not anywhere. I've sent an email to the photographer asking for such permission, but he has yet to respond. I hope I didn't piss him off with my incessant emails. I'm very discouraged also by how much time they gave me to get permission before deleting my image ... less than 24 hours after someone highlighted the problem. Wikipedia brown 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could direct them here. --Kristbg 22:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Kristbg, you can lead a horse to water, but can you make him drink? Anyways, I've re-uploaded the picture after Luigi30 so kindly and benevolently deleted it, and I've changed the page. I went ahead and uploaded 3 other pictures provided to me by Mr. Gillman. Please take a look, and let me know if you'd prefer any of these to the one currently there:
Band with Larry playing keyboards
Higher-res version of picture posted before (Can't see Adam's face)
Bluish lighting, but potentially better than the current one (audience in front is visible)
Wikipedia brown 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd pick the third one... but maybe we could crop it so the band wouldn't appear so small in the thumbnail. --Kristbg 11:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Third one for me too - maybe we need to cut out Edge and shift him a bit more to the right and then crop! ;-) Merbabu 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like that one too, but the band looks kinda small (and kinda blue) ... check it out at my sandbox. Wikipedia brown 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I still like the third one. But now I see the MSG pic is back up... this ends the discussion, I suppose? --Kristbg 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No Kristbg, the first picture from Mr. Gillman is still there. I can still change it to the one shown in my sandbox above if you guys think that is much better. Wikipedia brown 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, actually I think the current one looks better. The band doesn't look so tiny when in reduced size, and you can clearly see everyone's faces (except Larry, but at least he's behind the drums...) --Kristbg 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
For Jesus' sake, Change the main Picture!!!

Stevie Wonder now has 22 Grammys too

Stevie Wonder now has 22 Grammys after this year's Grammy awards (he won for best collaboration with Tony Bennett, which interestingly enough was up against Mary J Blige's rendition of One with U2). This means that U2 is now tied for 1st. Wikipedia brown 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we need to say that 'no other artist has more' or something like that. Merbabu 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Merbabu's suggestion. Wikipedia brown 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Single releases in discography?

Wouldn't it make sense to have the single releases in the discography section as well? I am not much into editing music articles, so I honestly don't know. -- RichiH 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The discography there is intended as a summary. If you go to U2 discography article (linked in the article) you'll see that is a mountain of singles. Thus, best to have them on a seperate page. Merbabu 12:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- RichiH 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

U2 @ Counterpunch

The political website carry articles that often critique U2 & Bono's social activism. I feel the need to add this 04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The following was removed from the article on May 3rd noting lack of citation. U2 and Bono's social activism have not been without its critics however, as the political newsletter Counterpunch have often carried articles critical of their being too close to power and their attempts to help as doing more harm than good. So I should cite a specific article that notes more harm than good rather than the wikipedia article about the Counterpunch newsletter. 17:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Who is counterpunch, and is their opinion important and well-founded, or do they just not like U2? --Merbabu 05:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I re-added a paragraph on criticism of U2& Bono's activism. 1) it is needed because it exists and is noteworthy. 2) I noted authors and other activists have written criticisms and that this type of criticism is often reprinted by the politically left Counterpunch. 3) noted that there is criticism from the political left, since issues concerning "helping Africa" often bring to mind debt relief. Noting merely criticism might cause one to think the political right. 4) two generalities of what the criticism is. Readers can follow the link if they want to know more details. There are other sources of such criticism, for sure. Counterpunch, which has advertised in "The Nation" news magazine, I chose because a) it is this type of source that I just happen to know best, and b) it is politically the left, which one typically might not think of criticizing the activism surrounding issues important to Afica. If one knows of or wants to find and add criticisms of U2 & Bono's activism that happen to come from politically right sources, feel free. I am sure they exist. Also, I have no idea whether they (Counterpunch editors/writers/etc) like u2 or not. 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ready to be featured?

See above. 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's been up two times already in 3 months (see records). While it has come a long way since then thanks to maybe 2 or 3 editors, there are still things that need to be done. There is much unnecesary info, but much missing too. But, you do inspire me to get on and do the work necessary. Watch this space. Merbabu 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

U2 are?

U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. Shouldn't it be U2 is a rock band from Dublin, Ireland?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ootmc (talkcontribs) 20:05, 31 March 2007

Hi! Thanks for your concern, and thank you for not editing the article itself. You're using the talk page the way it should be used! Band names are plural nouns in British English. U2 are a "collective" rather than a "thing" in British English ( and also Irish English, which is why it's used in this article ). For example: In America you would say "It is" and in Britain and Ireland you would say "They are" in place of "U2". I hope that clears it up!--JUDE talk 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Either way, my view is there are more important things to get hung up about. I used to revert any moves away from the British plural form, but i just ignore now any moves back and forth as long as they don't interefere with any other part of the article. Save your efforts for something else. :) --Merbabu 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry :). I didn't edit anything. I was just explaining the difference. I didn't mean to start anything serious. I understand that there are more important things, but I wanted to answer their question since I felt like I knew the answer. Sorry again.--JUDE talk 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to apoligise at all. YEs, i think it is good to discuss issues. And, i don't think you started anything serious. Your answer was good and I was merely stating my opinion. Again, don't apologise. Merbabu 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Album articles

On most U2 album articles there is a link to a review by Robert Christgau. link. I strongly feel that this page is not a real review by a respected source - most of the time he just writes a couple of sentence on each album, sometimes nothing at all. Plus, I've never heard of him. I removed all the links only to have them replaced, so can we have some consensus on this? Willnz0 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the reviews are kinda of half-arsed - two even just show a picture of a bomb, and one is only 1/2 a sentence. Is that encyclopedic? It's the same link on each album article to the guy's own page. Each 'review' is just a short paragraph.
The only other thing to check is this guy's notability - although he has a longish wikipedia article, I'm sorry to say that notablity doesn't jump off the page. But, irrespective of his notability, it doesn't get around the fact that the actual 'reviews' in the link is to his own page and are short and flippant without adding much at all to the knowledge of these albums.
regards Merbabu 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that reviews such as these wouldn't be notable, if they were by anybody but Robert Christgau. As far as whether his reviews qualify as professional reviews as per WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews, I'll note that in my sample of Wikipedia album articles, there are 1284 reviews by All Music Guide, 521 by Rolling Stone, 445 by Pitchfork and 347 by Robert Christgau, followed by 203 less commonly used review sources. --PEJL 07:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Robert Christgau is also listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Review sites. --PEJL 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Recollection from U2's formative years

For verification: Today I met a friend and we began talking about local bands. He's someone who is not given to making things up; he's a quiet Australian of Scottish descent who I've known about 10 years. He recalled being in Carlisle, Cumbria in 1979 and seeing a sign on a pub for a band playing that night: U2. He went to the gig and "there were about 20 people there including the band". He said that, among those present, were Kate Bush and Sid Vicious and he talked to both of them. (My friend said Sid gave Kate some tickets to a gig, and she passed them to him, "my Aussie friend".) This is where I'm beginning to get the jitters about the story, as Sid died in February 1979, and Kate was just then a new star. He said the pub was the "Seben Stars" (sic; yes, I queried him about the spelling!) Is there anyone from Carlisle who can verify the venue or the occasion? (The pub name does not come up on any search engine I've used.) Peter Ellis 06:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm - my understanding was that U2's first shows out of Ireland were in London only in Dec 1979. There were numerous British shows from 1980 onwards. My copy of the book 'U2 Live' doesn't have a listing of a show that could be the Cumbria show. hmmm - are Australians and Scotsman are known for tall stories! he he. By the way, there's a chance someone will tell us off for discussions not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, but that's OK. Merbabu 07:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is to get data on early U2 shows that can be incorporated into the article. An example of an early U2 gig that has Bush and Viscious would show their profile and standing among fellow musicians. Peter Ellis 16:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That they actually played that venue in 1979 needs to be verified. All relevant sources I have suggest they didn't. Furthermore, even if it was true, is this "profile and standing" (1) also verifiable or just synthesised original research and (2) is actually notable? There might be a point to mention about U2 being punk influenced (and hence maybe a possible Syd Viscious connection/influence) very early on but once again, it depends on WP:ATT. kind regards Merbabu 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'Spider-Man: The Musical,' music by U2

How much you want to bet someone will add something about this to the page within the next 24 hours [22]? Wikipedia brown 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks to for proving me right!!! Wikipedia brown 04:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
he he - i had a chuckle. Should it be there? I suspect no.
No probably not, until they actually release something. Wikipedia brown 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey all I'm new to wiki, anyways I just referenced the spiderman musical, original fix was by I think. 06:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just removed that section. Please do not readd it until some official word about it is released. At this point, it is little more than a rumor. ---Charles 14:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I just removed yet another reference to this supposed musical. This one claimed it had been officially confirmed, yet had no ref. to support that assertion. Is there any truth to this rumor? ---Charles 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about adding that without mentioning it here. It's on the front page of the Life section of the April 20th edition of the USA Today that Bono and The Edge will indeed be writing most/all of the score for a Spider-Man musical. So, i'll let one of you guys look it up and add it to the article after you find it. ---Dirtylemons666 18:18, 23 April 2007

New album

I don't like (sometimes detailed) running commentaries on developing events in an encyclopedia which I should feel should move a bit slower an record things that have actually happened and are significant. Thus I don't know that we need to list a so-far non-existant U2 album in the list of albums, and the article should only make a brief description of the work towards it. If we want up to date but transient information we should go to a newspaper or rock journal. In fact, i just removed it. Merbabu 04:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. MelicansMatkin 06:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with you. No need to document minor events like rumors of a new album or the spiderman musical thing I mentioned above (which makes me laugh ... spiderman musical? What are they thinking?). In fact, is there a way to add to the next album information a message to editors not to include rumors and such, unless a major event happens (pre-released album is stolen or leaked or Adam Clayton decides to quit U2 and become an astronaut, thereby causing next album to be cancelled) ??? Rumors are really a dime a dozen ... Wikipedia brown 13:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no place for pointless rumours in an encyclopedia. Is Adam really leaving U2, though?  ;) Merbabu 14:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL, these guys have been together for more than 25 years, so I'm guessing if really Adam wanted to take a trip into space (which I'm sure he could afford), he would have to take Bono, Edge, and Larry with him (although maybe not Larry, I get the feeling he's afraid of heights!) Wikipedia brown 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
We've been hearing for *how* long that there's a new album coming? I heard the other day that they were doing a regular album and a Passengers-esque collaboration. Who knows? Neranei (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Joy Division/New Order should NOT be under Influences

Though it can be debated whether or not these bands have influenced U2, they are not major influences. The bands that are listed as major influences (The Who, The Clash, The Ramones, The Beatles) are frequently brought up by the band themselves as large inspirations and even tributed to in their sound. Of course, the band has other influences -- but this section should be for major influences only; otherwise, it'll make the article -- and that particular section, of course -- too long, as the article is pretty long as it is. If we were to put every influence of U2, or any band for that matter, it'd need it's own page to list them all. Therefore, the four that are listed are enough for major influences. 17:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is the band do consider them major influences, particularly in their early years; they just don't talk about them much. Bono makes a number of appearances in the 1994 New Order documentary NewOrderStory which I've been citing; for some reason Bono's always talking straight into a camcorder he's holding over his head in his scenes. The most important items are when he says U2 "worshipped" Joy Division, and when Quincy Jones says (paraphrased) "Bono once told me that New Order is the band that's influenced them the most but they really don't tell anyone." Important additional items of note: the song "A Day Without We" from Boy was written about the suicide of Joy Division singer Ian Curtis, Bono vowed to Tony Wilson (owner of Factory Records, Joy Division and New Order's record label) to take Curtis' place as top frontman of his generation after his death, and U2 is rumored to be contributing a track to the soundtrack to Control, the upcoming film about Curtis. WesleyDodds 09:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Wesley on this one...though I wasn't aware of their devotion to them, either, even after reading U2 By U2, twice...ah well. RattleandHum 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't any opinion on the matter one way or the other. I, quite frankly, think that it is a minor point. If it is documented that the members of the band have stated they are a major influence, then it should be left. A concensus on the issue needs to be reached here, though, before any further changes are made to the article. ---Charles 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster...they should not be included. Even if they are influences, they aren't NEARLY as influential to U2 as the ones already listed and that's what that section is for: the major influences. Any diehard U2 fan can tell you The Beatles, The Who, The Ramones and The Clash are their biggest inspirations: look at their catalog and so on, they're constantly brought up; Joy Division? Hardly. Yes, Joy Division had some influence over their earlier sound but that's pretty much it, and just because Joy Division "became" New Order doesn't mean they influenced them as well, that's pointless. I say we keep the influences to the original four and those four only. 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
WesleyDodds has made an excellent case for the inclusion of Joy Division & New Order with citations saying that the band does consider them major influences. You say "any diehard U2 fan can tell you..." blah blah blah. Well, that is not a citation, nor is it relevant. Wesley provided sources for the assertion, you provide nothing other than your opinion. Furthermore, I suspect that you are, in fact, the original poster, with whom you say you agree. Stop changing the article to fit your opinion. ---Charles 17:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we need a more reliable cite for The Beatles. Has anyone seen the link cited? Not quite a reliable source. WesleyDodds 10:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Bono learned everything he knows from David Gahan (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion between YouTube and U2?

user TheFuzzyFive had changed the lead to cover potential confusion between YouTube and U2, I am not sure this could occur and reverted it; thoughts? --Parhamr 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry I was just joking. Simply consider it an act of vandalism. Cheers, TheFuzzyFive 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at his talk page and you can see he makes a habit of this kind of "joking". ---Charles 03:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge U2's 16th album into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merger. -- Crashintome4196 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article U2's 16th album should be merged into this article because the album does not yet have enough information or even a title to have its own article at this point. –Crashintome4196 03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say no to that because another page for the 16th album would have to be created sooner or later. I've also seen a lot of the fandom anticipate that a new album will be released by this time next year (although I admit that, with U2 of all bands, prediction is impossible). MelicansMatkin 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a news service of 'fandom' gossip/rumour site. An encyclopedia should list things that are notable, not things that haven't happened. It doesn't have to be up to the date by the second like news must, and articles certainly shouldn't be based on speculation and possibilities. Chop it - and it shouldn't be listed here in the discography. Merbabu 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree that there should not be an article on U2's yet unreleased album, I'm against merging it to this one - it would do more harm than good. U2 is currently a FA candidate, and adding four paragraphs with the latest news to it defnitely wouldn't help. The information already on this article (with six linked references) is more than enough. --Kristbg 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, certainly shouldn't be merged into U2. It's all speculation from fan sites. In fact, their is already too much of that in U2. Merbabu 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My recent edits to the 2004 - 2007 section...

I spent some time culling info in this section. The section was long but had very little info that was notable enough for the main page on U2 a band with 30 year history. SOrry, but it was a tedious read. It was full of statistics, dates, and overly detailed listings awards. It's a lot shorter now - some info is already in sub-articles and other overly detailed, even tedious, info I pushed down into footnotes, and other info i just remove redundancies in language, so no actual info is gone. This is the diff [23] but it is best viewed in the article itself - as most info is now in footnotes. Salient points..

  • We don't need to list each of the five categories and five songs that won Grammy's - i've put in a link to the 2006 U2 awards page. (or, perhaps we could list these in the footnotes of the U2 article)
  • We don't need to make a running list of every quote from the band on the new album - although I shifted them into the footnotes.
  • As such, the two sentences that cover the only substantial info on the album do not need their own section.
  • And the tag highlighting "speculative info likely to change" is ugly, and is unnecessary as such info should not be here - and has been removed.
  • we don't need to list all the different versions of U218 singles here. That's what the linked U218 Singles article is for. That info is just superfluous detail on this 'main' page.

The section does need a bit more on the album and tour's themes, motivations, etc. The Joshua Tree and Unforgettable Fire sections do this well in my opinion, whilst the HTDAAB section is very shallow in contrast. It is just discusses of iPod/Apple and chart positions (which i condensed last week). These are important of course, but in detail and on their own - "snore!". At most three well-referenced sentences is what we need to add; I will research later, but off the top of my head:

  • The band wanted a sound that was harder hitting than ATYCLB
  • It's quite retrospective in themes
  • We'll find something - lol.

Any thoughts? --Merbabu 03:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice edits! I agree completely that the speculative "Next album" section was nothing but rumors and deliberately vague quotes from the band. As for the the HTDAAB :section, here are three nice reviews that we can pull material from for the album at the least (all of them call this album a rock-and-roll album, aka "hard-hitting"):
Slant Magazine Review
Short BBC review
Nice RS review
And a Vertigo show review for good measure:
Washington Post Review
I also agree that three sentences should be appropriate Merbabu. I'm looking forward to adding some words over the next day or two. Wikipedia brown 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Edits 15 May

I added a bit - from a Rolling Stone mag. We could probably get a bit more quality info in but anything more than a sentence, I'd like to see some of the other condensed - do we need all those stats and dates? Can some go to album, tour and song articles? Merbabu 03:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Article protection?

In regard to the question of whether Joy Division/New Order should be considered a "major influence" on U2, it looks as if this anonymous user is the only one who objects. I strongly suspect that the IPs [[24]], [[25]], and[[26]] are actually the same person, who continues to delete content from the article not in keeping with his POV. As this is the case, can the article be protected to put an end to his vandalism? ---Charles 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange

In the "Other Projects" section, please include that Bono and the Edge scored the London stage version of Italic textA Clockwork OrangeItalic text in 1990. I was in London and saw it at the time. It was forgettable. 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was forgettable, then there's no need to mention it here, right? In any case, let's just hope that the Spiderman musical is not as humdrum (but I wouldn't bet on it). Wikipedia brown 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was speaking more of the play than the music. Still it was significant in that it was a production with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Also, music from this influneced/morphed into the style of Actung Baby. See this reference: [[27]] and [[28]]

I actually agree that it should at least be brought up (if it hasn't already :) ) mainly due to the fact that a song that was done for the project was subsequently released on The Fly (song) single... Jgrizzy89 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FA push

I'm quite aware that the article is at its third FAC right now and I have some ideas on how to spruce it up: mainly streamlining prose, combining paragraphs, and moving some things around. I'm particularly interested in moving the information about influences into the "Musical style" section (which is common in Wiki band articles) and moving "Other projects" below it. I'd really like to spend a day or so later going through the article and tweaking it, but I wanted to let everyone know first so I don't step on anyone's toes while editing and so others can discuss what needs to be done. WesleyDodds 10:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I wrote the Musical Style section, and there have been almost zero changes since I wrote it. I think your idea to put Influences into the Musical Style section is a good one -- for not just consistency but readability as well. Once this is done, the flow will make more sense too -- Style and Influences, Other Projects, and then Campaigning. You have my support to undertake a streamlining project as well; I have to confess that I haven't had time to really make any changes (plus maybe I've lost a little bit of my motivation to do so until I see other's ideas for these non-history parts of the article). By the way, you're one of the few people who I can make a hugely positive impact on this article -- you did manage to take the Smashing Pumpkins articles to FA-hood, and I think you could really help do the same here!! Wikipedia brown 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably get to working on this Monday (American time) with probably some work in the next day or so. Just so everyone knows. And I'll post anything I think we need more info on. By the way, I know the U2 books have been extensively cited, but have any of the DVDs/home videos? I have the "Classic Albums" DVD on The Joshua Tree and I've noticed some of the other U2 DVDs have a number of documentaries. For example, I was in Borders the other day and saw the Sydney Zoo TV DVD had two documentaries about the tour. WesleyDodds 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I re-wrote the JOshua Tree Section a few months back and i went through the Joshua Tree DVD. Although it is excellent documentary, i found most of the material was either already in the section, OR it was very song-specific. Ie, material better for individual song articles.Merbabu 00:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Further, sounds good Wesley. Please note my changes to the 2004 onwards section discussed a few sections above. Have fun! Merbabu 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
changes to lead...

I undid this good faith edit. I don't think detailed band member listing and instruments played info should be the second sentence. We need to establish U2 as a band first - which is what the article is about. ie, the lead should establish the most salient points first and work down from there. Also, they actually didn't really know each other. They 'knew of' each other they have said. Merbabu 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit the formation info as need be, but it's very important that the bandmembers are listed as soon as possible in the article. Think of this way: for the random person who stumbles upon the article without knowing who U2 is, they need to know who U2 is. At its most basic, U2 is a band from Ireland consisting of Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, and Larry Mullen. Then we go into why random uninformed reader should care. It's a basic consistent approach to band article lead sections.WesleyDodds
I disagree and this has been the consensus for some months. Put the significant general bits first. not a whole lot of details. I think the consistency argument is a poor one. Is there a policy? THere's no point in doing something to the detrminant of the lead simply cos it is done somewhere else. Simply put, it doesn't make good reading. Also, please bare in mind that stability is one of the criteria for FA status. Merbabu 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The stability criteria is subjective; it mainly pertains to POV disputes, since unstability in those instances results from differing viewpoints trying to alter the page to reflect their own agendas. Frequent uncontroversial edits to improve the page wouldn't be a big deal, since they will have contributed constructively to the article. I don't think there's a set policy for listing bandmembers immediately in the lead (I'll have to look it up), but it's ubiquitously used in band articles. And there's good rationale for it. My take on it is that it's very helpful to the uninformed reader, which we need to consider with every article. Really, this thing called "U2" is an abstract concept that exists in logos, legal forms, and trademarks. In the most concrete terms, this article focuses on the musical endevours of four guys: Bono, Edge, Larry, and Adam. It's specific knowledge, but it's basic knowledge, and basic knowledge is always emphasized in the lead. Obviously band articles are all different, but look at a few FAs here (Megadeth, Pixies, Slayer, Genesis, The Smashing Pumpkins, The KLF) and you'll see band members are mentioned pretty quickly in each article. I would argue such an approach does make good reading, for it concisely answers the question anyone coming to this page will be asking ("What is U2?"), and that is very important. WesleyDodds 09:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to weigh in here. I'll go ahead and change my mind here ... let's not make major changes to the article while it's an FA candidate. Nobody touched the article for like 2 months between late February and beginning of May, so I'm sure your changes are not super-high priority. Also, I agree with Merbabu that the lead should remain the same. I haven't seen any complaints about it, and unless there's some rule that there has to be consistency between articles, I believe if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Besides, I thought you were going to make changes only to the "Other Projects and Influences" and "Musical Style and Themes" section? I find your boldness inspiring Wesley, but at this stage a lot of work has gone into this article, and so there's no need to mess with things that are already well-written. If you do feel that the lead needs change, I highly suggest we discuss the changes first here and come to a consensus. Wikipedia brown 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Changes to the "Other projects and Influences" and "Musical style and themes" sections were the ones I had specifically in mind from the get-go; I was going to read through the entire article and make additional changes as need be. Yes, I am going to make major changes to the article, but these will be to address the main problem that has hampered this article in past FACs: prose. Some areas do need to be rewritten in order to be more readable and more accessible. I ask that everyone extend good faith to me and allow me to extensively edit the article, and then afterwards we can discuss changes. I've participated in a number of FAC discussions, and I've personally brought two articles to FA status (The Smashing Pumpkins and "Smells Like Teen Spirit"). I know what this article needs, and everything I plan to do is to make this article FA-worthy. For example, even during the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" FAC, I was constantly revising the prose to improve it, even when the article received several support votes and a few strong supports. We can always make an article better, especially at the FAC phase. WesleyDodds 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What are the specific issues with prose that you feel need you to make major changes? It's right in the middle of an FA and prose has not been an issue. We have spent a long time going the it over and over. Nor was prose identified in the in the previous FAs. Rather it was content and that has changed a lot. Experience on other pop culture articles does not inspire confidence as these are generally the worst written articles on wikipedia.
I agree that the two sections you mention can be re-done. Merbabu 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Little things like punctuation, phrasing, flow. Some things can be moved around; personally I like to open with the most basic information possible with each section (ex. "U2 has contributed to various charities over the years"). I want to emphasize we are writing for a general audience; not everyone knows what U2 is, or even what a rock band is. I like to go through an article and edit extensively as I read; there are some things I would vote "Oppose" on at the FAC but I won't because I plan to fix them (prose, more description for the soundclips to better support fair use, etc.). While I have worked primarily on pop culture articles (at various levels, ranging from stubs to peer review and FAC), I do feel that gives me a modicum of experience on how to make a pop culture article such as this better. I just ask you to trust me to try and revise the article for the better. WesleyDodds 00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
arbitary break

I think everyone would like to see the most basic info first, but i don't see that in this or this. With the second diff here, the detailed background recording info got put in front of the opening general sentences describing the album. Thus, let me request that you expain all your changes clearly - even ask in advance for any major changes.

Having said that, let me add "Charity" to your suggested "Other projects and Influences" and "Musical style and themes" sections for major re-writes. These are important sections and have some good info, but I would agree whole-heartedly if you said they needed a re-write or condensing. kind regards Merbabu 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC) PS, i agree possibly the sound clips could be better described in the box if possible - the four were carefully chosen to meet the info in the article - ie, we didn't chose the big hits. I'll explain later if you want to put more info into describing them. regards Merbabu 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's an error with the first link you provided, but the second one illustrates what I feel is the actual basic point of that section: not that Achtung Baby was released, but that U2 wanted to change their sound, thus resulting in Achtung Baby and the Zoo TV tours. The block quote does a great job of supporting this, and it's set up by the end of the previous section if you read the whole article through, but it all works better if the making of the album is detailed first. I plan to do the long, intensive edit tomorrow (which is how I feel I do my best work); I don't know what changes I'm going to make until I do, but please, don't worry. I'm worried that you feel I might compromise the article by editing delicate areas, but I want to assure you anything I do I'm pretty sure is something the article needs, or it'll be something I'll revise myself moments later because it turned out crap. Everyone makes mistakes, but I'm fidgety enough to try three or four wholly different attempts at the prose until I find the version I think works best. WesleyDodds 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the main point about AB's new direction, we are certainly in agreement that is indeed the main point - but I've done it differently, and over night I've since strengthened the emphasis on change in the first few sentences. have a look For me, that second paragraph is more detail about the studio process and it's disagreements. Yes, the intial sessions were fraught - the band even says they considered giving up for the first time (maybe that should go in?), BUT that is how they got there, it is not the main point - ie, the resulting album and it's great shift. There is a several-page long discussion of this in Flanagan's book, and I've added a reference to it.
Yes, the block quotes are a very useful feature. The main criticism of the previous FAC was that the article was too full of dates, statistics, individually listed grammys (that's 22!?!), and single release info. Ie, very dry, and short on colour, context, meaning, themes, etc. I had to agree, and we've since removed a lot of that dry info. It's a new article since then and the block quotes were very carefully chosen after trawling through resources, and are a part of getting some of that 'colour' to fit nicely alongside more staid 'encyclopedic' content.
As for your assurance that you will only improve it, i must admit, to me that initially sounded a bit like "trust me, i know what's best" but please, go ahead! And I really think that the two sections you nominated first (the themes and other projects sections) plus the campaigning sections are prime candidates or a re-write. Those who wrote them found very good info, but I'm not sure how the writing could be improved - although I had a go the other day. kind regards --Merbabu 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
FA Push

The more i read it, the more i can see that amongst all the good info, there is a lot of rubbish. It is not ready for FA at the moment, but I am reluctant to suggest withdrawing the FAC as it is the best way to get feedback. i should point out that this is the second time I've found myself supporting a unilateral 'drive-by' nomination - ie, the editor who nominator has it seems never edited the article and has not involved himself with the FAC. In response to the latest comments, i found myself in a rush to cull info from the lead and other sections - but such a rush is not the best way. Merbabu 05:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FA closed

The FAC has been closed. I'd like to get editors' opinion. The last two FACs, maybe the last three, have been 'drive-by' nominations by editors who have had nothing to do with the article and failed to contribute to the FAC process after nominating. They made no effort to consult with regular contributers. It is now twice that I have found myself supporting an FAC for a half ready article. Thus, i suggest that next time the article gets such a non-consensus nomination that we go ahead and remove it on sight until there is consensus that the article is ready. I for one would certainly support a regular/significant editor who removed such a FAC nomination. What do we think? --Merbabu 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone against my own article before under different circumstances. Didn't see the point of supporting mine when it wasn't up to snuff yet.--Berol 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Things needed

This is a list of things needed for the article that I'm compiling as I edit the article. I'll add more as they come to me. Strike each item out as they are addressed; the sooner they can can be provided the better.

  • The "We need to go back and dream it all back up again" quote from their last show before working on Achtung Baby would be a great way to end the Rattle and Hum section. Can someone source this?WesleyDodds 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it's probably the most cliched U2 quote around (ha ha), but cliches are cliches for good reason. Let me have a look.Merbabu 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's actually not from their last show before Achtung Baby. It's from Dec. 30, 1989, so there were five more shows (Dec. 31st and then four in early January, 1990). In any case, the actual speech can be found here. Hope this helps. Pleeker 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We need a better citation for the Beatles influence. The link provided consists of little more than arbitrary comparisons between the two groups. WesleyDodds 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What about this Bono interview? Bono says "The most important influence for me personally would be the Beatles..." and more. Pleeker 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bono's line about re-applying for their job as biggest band in the world would be a good addition, giving context to their shift in sound for All That You Can't Leave Behind.WesleyDodds 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I've combined the last two album sections per reasonable FAC suggestions, and it thus needed a new section heading. I've actually used this line as the new heading. Corny I know, maybe it's not appropriate. Although, it probably needs explaining if it is to be kept. Merbabu 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added a more detailed description for "The Fly" soundclip. That's the sort of description each soundclip needs to help justify fair use. Also, it'll particularly help with the War paragraph, which is one of the weaker paragraphs in the article since it focuses so much on "Sunday Bloody Sunday". Move some of that detail to the soundclip box, or remove it and write something in the box that explains why it is important in the context of U2's career at that point. Feel free to add what you think are the notable aspects of each soundclip to the other clip descriptions. WesleyDodds 10:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, need description and The Fly is now well-catered for. I'm thinking though, would 'I Will Follow' be a better soundbite? SBS is close to the UF fire clip - and there is plenty of descriptive words about Boy that could be used for I Will Follow. Merbabu 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd rather there be something from The Joshua Tree than The Unforgettable Fire in the biography section for two reasons: 1. The Joshua Tree is the better-known and more acclaimed album; and B. I really think a clip of "Pride (In the Name of Love)" would be the perfect soundclip for the "Musical Style" section since it has many of the hallmarks associated with U2: Bono's anthemic voice, The Edge's use of delay and harmonics, etc. Given for band articles only one soundclip per album is preferred, we could do without the one for "The Unforgettable Fire". As for "I Will Follow", I'd be cool with using that. WesleyDodds 02:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmmm - The Unforgettable Fire album is arguably U2's most pivotal album - they made a concious effort for growth, and the results showed what they could be artistically. The song of the same is the best example of that changed direction. Pride on the other hand isn't - in fact, it arguably is the song most similar to the typical U2 up to that point. This was discussed further up in talk.[29] As for putting a 5th track in the style section, then maybe Pride could be good for the reasons you state - or what about Where the Streets have no name? Even a superior and stirring live version. IN fact, we haven't actually talked about U2's live reputation - that could even go in the lead.
        • I think simply putting a soundclip for track from an album because it is well-known is a fairly weak reason. What exactly can we explain about a Joshua Tree song "This was number one hit for a U2?" - i don't think that it is very informative for the article. Nah - stick to the unforgettable fire sound bite.
        • OK, good that we agree on I Will Follow - it also good for showing the aspects you mention about Pride.
        • TO be honest, i don't even like the idea of sound bites in an encyclopedia article, however, i seem to be against consensus on their inclusion, so I strive to make sure we make them as good as possible. :) Merbabu 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • How about we just replace the "Sunday Bloody Sunday" soundclip with "I Will Follow"? WesleyDodds 10:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Sounds good. Merbabu 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We need something about the relative success of October; from what I understand it's their lowest-selling album. If there's not much to be said about the album, I suggest combining that paragraph with the Boy paragraph and then merging that section with either the "Formation" section or the War section. WesleyDodds 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A lot of the information on The Unforgettable Fire could be moved to the album's page.WesleyDodds 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's my most beloved bit - a long with Joshua Tree - but, your's is probably a fair call. Be gentle! :) Merbabu 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Could the white flag possibly be expanded upon? WesleyDodds 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe 1/2 a sentence at most. Merbabu 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We need to mention any bands U2 has greatly influenced.

I'm done for the night; I've got to sleep. I hope to do more tomorrow and I look forward to any discussion that might be brought up until then. WesleyDodds 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Pop section...

This edit rightly cleaned up some sloppy writing, but maybe removed an important point. For all the publicity about Pop being a dance or electronic record, this arguably only applies to the first three songs. Furthermore, there is a great diversity of material - a point which the band themselves comment on: It’s very difficult to pin this record down. It’s not got any identity because it’s got so many. (Edge in Propaganda 25). Any ideas? Maybe 1/2 a sentence - more better writed than before. Merbabu 03:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that issue regarding the Pop album when I was editing the section, but I ultimately thought such a fine distinction is better suited for the album article itself. We could rephrase it to say the album emphasizes a experimental techno sound on certain tracks, or quote a news source describing the album as such, but we don't need to mention what the other songs sound like, at least on this page. Oh, and I was just rereading the 2004 Spin article on U2 (cited in this article via a link, but I have the original magazine) and Adam Clayton emphasizes that the album was a dance/electronic records, although that's probably just reflective of his own viewpoint and the sort of divisions in the band that have existed since the making of Achtung Baby. WesleyDodds 10:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the History section is pretty much fine now. We should now move on to "Musical Style" and the Campaigning section. The Campaigning section seems particularly dry to me; it needs some rearranging and reworking, but I have no ideas on what to do. WesleyDodds 01:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide album sales

Just to let everyone see the dialog behind the scenes, I'm cutting-and-pasting comments from user talk pages regarding the constant reverting of this edit.

From User talk:

Please stop changing the album sales in U2. The source cited clearly says 170 million, not 146 million. If you have a source that claims otherwise, please present it on the U2 discussion page. Thank you. -- Reaper X 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Reaper X:

Sorry for using your talk page as a discussion forum, ReaperX, but I have to respond to's comment above., you definitely seem to know what you're talking about; however, since Paul Vallely is a well-known writer and The Independent is a reputable source, you can't change the number of albums sold without finding a better "more official" reference, and replacing the reference. I have seen the discussion at the Interference forums here, but you simply can't change the Wikipedia article based on your own speculation -- see No Original Research. Wikipedia brown 04:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:

Regarding the response you gave me, Wikipedia brown left his 2 cents on my talk page, and so you might not have seen them., you definitely seem to know what you're talking about; however, since Paul Vallely is a well-known writer and The Independent is a reputable source, you can't change the number of albums sold without finding a better "more official" reference, and replacing the reference. I have seen the discussion at the Interference forums here, but you simply can't change the Wikipedia article based on your own speculation -- see No Original Research. Wikipedia brown 04:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you see the reasons behind sticking to this number. If you still disagree with this position, please carry on this discussion on the U2 discussion page. This is not personal, we are merely following policies. Call us sticklers, but thats the way the cookie crumbles. -- Reaper X 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So there it is, just so everyone knows. -- Reaper X 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for copying this Reaper. I also should add to the discussion that Wikipedia's policy is one of verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia brown 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of subsequent discussion and in hopes of progress, I should concede (in some contradiction to my comment above) that Paul Vallely is not a music writer (he's actually a writer of issues related to Africa and development), and therefore is not the best authority on the matter. So, if anyone can find a better OFFICIAL source for album sales, please replace the current one. However, until a better source can be found, I believe it should stay as it is. Wikipedia brown 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, in my opinion 170m is too high (it means on average U2 sell 15m per studio album - bs), but until we find a better source, we cannot replace it with something unsourced. Another tactic might be to find sources on individual albums that are both (a) recent and (b) reliable and then add up from there - but that requires info on each album. In the meantime, lets stop inserting unverified sources. Merbabu 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, I don't think Wikipedia policy allows for us to add up individual album sales from disparate sources ... see No Original Research, specifically under the "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" section. I might be reading it too literally though .... Don't hate me because I'm literal Wikipedia brown 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well nonetheless, we have to stick with what we got. This Paul Vallely character seems to be a reliable source in the meantime. I mean, he's a professional writer. Usually professional writers would research verified sources to make a claim such as that; I don't think he pulled the number 170 million out of his ass. But it would be nice to find another source that could verify/overrule that claim. Theres gotta be something out there. -- Reaper X 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree Reaper-X. He's actually associate editor of the Independent, so I sincerely hope he does his homework! Wikipedia brown 02:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
170million still doesn't sound correct - way too much in my mind. But I'm not suggesting we put our own estimates. It might be a good exercise to find individual figures just to confirm. Merbabu 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
125 even sounds a little high considering that the first couple of albums are way below their average sales. I can find all kinds of references to 170 million, including the Cannes film festival site. But, they coulda got the info from wikipedia for all I know.--Berol 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready for another FA nomination?

I know Merbabu won't be happy about the prospect, but can I ask if we have any sort of community consensus to go for yet another FA nomination? Frankly, I know that no one has the time to deal with the fallout right away, but I think if we all work together, we can address any other issues that the FA reviewers may have. I have nominated once before, and I didn't keep up with the comments as I should have; however, I learned my lesson and I won't make the same mistake again. You may think the article is still too shabby to be a Featured Article, but frankly, to me it looks very well-written as it is now. I can't see what else can be asked for in a featured article. Well-sourced, well-written, good pictures, good layout -- at this point, if this doesn't become a featured article, the Wikipedia reviewers are just being WAY too picky in my opinion. Here are specific arguments I'd like to cite for another FA nomination:

1. Merbabu and WesleyDodds did an excellent job culling and rewriting the history section. I can't see a thing wrong with it. The main criticism from the previous FAC nomination was that the history sections and the lead were too long and some of the facts presented lacked context or were altogether pointless. I don't see that being the case now. Thirty years of music by the biggest band in the world have been compressed into little more than 40 kilobytes of well-written, well-cited text. What more could you ask for?

I agree - it's a different article since that particular FAC. The text boxes and re-writes of the UF and JT sections were a major factor in that - as was the themes and influences section. And I remember removing a list of 6 grammy awards and the songs that one from the HTDAAB section (groan). Merbabu 12:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

2. I wrote 90% of the "Musical Themes" and "Campaigning" sections, and today they are almost identical to what I had originally wrote 4-5 months ago. There have been zero suggestions from other editors as to how to improve these sections for the last 4-5 months. I don't think anyone has a single clue as how to improve them. What I gather from Merbabu and WesleyDodds is that both sections need to be entirely rewritten. I have no problem with that. Please rewrite them as soon as possible. Start from scratch if you must. However as mentioned by WesleyDodds, at the end of the last FAC nomination, he has "no ideas on what to do". I think another FAC nomination will at least help give us some suggestions as to how to improve these sections. If you can think of any other way we can go about doing this, don't hesitate to say so here.

hmm - i thought they were copyedited thoroughly, but you are correct, i don't think the info contained has changed dramatically from your start. Merbabu 12:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

3. There is a strong correlation between major changes/revisions to the article and FA nominations. The article has reached a high-level of maturity, and as a result 99% of all changes that occur outside of FA nominations for the past 3 months have been either extremely negligible or vandalism. In this case, I believe the ends would justify the means: an FA nomination would either succeed in making U2 a featured article, or it would serve to improve the article (or both). In either case, the article benefits.

Yes - an FA would help. But we can still do some work. I am keen now that I have got Indonesia FAC out of the way. And we need external eyes to make 'brilliant prose' which i am looking for now. Merbabu 12:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Merbabu, I don't understand your hesitation in having additional Featured Article nominations. The article doesn't all of a sudden "lose points" after failed nominations, so if anything, they improve the quality by providing feedback and direction for improvements. I realize that all of us need to manage the reviewers expectations and criticisms and we need the personal time to do this, but there won't be a time that all of us (Merbabu, WesleyDodds, Kristbg, RattleandHum, etc, etc) will all of a sudden say, "we all have hours and hours of free time, let's nominate U2 for FA!!". I promise that I will participate more closely unlike last time I nominated the article in January, possibly a proper "drive-by nomination" since I didn't help in answering the criticisms from the reviewers. Moreover, as Berol suggested, if you feel the article isn't up to snuff (which it might not be, depending on your personal standards), you could always oppose the FA nomination. Or, if you have immediate reasons that this article should not be nominated, please point out your criticisms here and now, so we can all work towards addressing them when we each have some spare time.

OK - let's spend a few weeks getting a few things into shape - and then head into an FAC. To do FAC properly, they are gruelling. Merbabu 12:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In summary, I'm actively trying to build a consensus here, or at least begin a discussion for consensus. However, I don't see any Wikipedia policy or even guideline that requires a consensus for FA nomination to be achieved. If you feel strongly that we ABSOLUTELY SHOULDN'T start another FAC nomination for U2, please make your argument and convince me here. At worst, I would like to offer the article up for another Peer Review. Wikipedia brown 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am 100% supportive of going for FA - but FA needs to be 'ready' and that needs preparatory work. Yes, let's start that now and hopefull in a few weeks we can get a nomination going. What I was categorically not supportive of was what I call 'drive by' FA nominations. The last 2 (or even 3) nominations were just that – editors who have never edited the article just nominates and then leaves again. I found myself defending a half-ready article. (no, i wasn't referring to your nomination wikipedia brown :) )
FA is cruelling – in the last few weeks I got Indonesia promoted to FA, which like U2 is a particularly general topic. And general topics are the hardest – as the current United States FAC is showing. I’m still recovering from FAC Indonesia - he he.
There is more in your post above that I can comment on soon – but mostly agreement. I advise others also read and comment before we go unified and ready to FAC - which is exactly what Wikipedia Brown has taken the initiative to do here. :)
One thing we have to work out is how to handle conflicting FAC recommendations – ie, in the past we’ve had some reviewers say, too much detail, others have said too little!. Some have said less facts (charts, dates, awards, release date of each single (groan), etc), more descriptions (influences, context, motivations, reception), while others say more hard facts and less ("pov") descriptions. Personally, I lean to less facts/dates and more (reliably sourced) description. Perhaps we can ask indiviually previous reviewers, particularly if they offered reviews that conflicted with the opinions of others.
Most importantly, while we might think it looks 'perfect', since we are close to the content, we often miss things, and although we can get protective, we are not writing for ourselves, but for 'outsiders' and hence we will get seemingly harsh comments from outsiders in FAC. Generally, I've found myself resisting recommended changes - initially - after 24hours, they generally seem OK, even very good. That was my experience with Indonesia and previous U2 nominations.
Criteria 1a is the toughest - I can almost guarrantee we will get hammered for that - and deservedly. It's not that our prose is bad - it is very good - but it needs to be brilliant, and that is not likely that it is something that we can fix alone since we are so close to the article now. We need the assistance of outsiders. I know a few good copyeditors, I will try and butter-them-up and ask for assistance, and report back to you all. Remember though FAC is a consensus; while there will be extremely lenient reviewers, there will also be extremely fussy ones. However, the opinion of neither extreme will ultimately decide - ie, it's almost always somewhere in the middle ground. I've been very protective and even scared of 'outsiders' editing articles I'm close to, but almost always it ends up better - we just have to keep an eye on factual integrity.
Will comment further within 24 hours. I really think we need to get a good outside copyeditor or two to go through before we nominate. Thanks Wikipedia brown!! Merbabu 01:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the album sections from Achtung Baby onwards are amazing - they are not bad - but they could do with some work. By the way, I am currently trying to flatter external copyeditors to help us out - the article needs fresh eyes. Afterall, our audience is not us regular editors. I will let you know how I go. Merbabu 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now the Campaigning section needs the most work. We could also use another copyedit; I can ask a few fellow users to give it a look over. WesleyDodds 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


there is a new U2 WikiProject. everybody that is a regular editor of any u2 pages please join.

"Reapplying for Best Band In The World" (2000-present)

Who came up with that section name? Is that an actual quote or what? If not, it sounds a little POV to me... -- Reaper X 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an actual quote from the band that was used a number of times. It sums up very well what the band were trying to do with their music and performance from 2000 onwards and fits well with the article flow. Merbabu 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well a suggestion would be to include that quote in some kind of prose in the section, and cite a reference. Without that, it leaves me wondering, "Where the fuck did that quote come from?!", and I'm sure it may do the same to other readers. -- Reaper X 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point. I think it is a good heading - summarises well that post 2000 phase, but you are are correct - it needs reference/context. I or someone else needs to find a citation for it and work it into the article. cheers. Merbabu 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i searched and found another Wikipedia article, All That You Can't Leave Behind actually, with a reference from Time. The quote is actually "[We're] reapplying for the job. What job? The best band in the world job", so I paraphrased it to "Reapplying for band in the world" and made this edit. Look good? -- Reaper X 03:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. Yeah, variations of that quotation were said a few times. I will try to find a few more citations that can be clipped onto the one footnote. thanks again. Merbabu 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember this quote, it was quite well publicized in the music industry and I think it should be included in the body text of the article (or maybe a pull quote box) to express the band's intentions. However, imo, it's completely inappropriate to use it as the title of this section. If we were using titles that put the band's spin on their own work for each section, then we'd also have very positive sounding titles for say the Pop and Zooropa sections, and I'm sure that wouldn't last long because few people would agree with the band. Even if we called the Achtung Baby section "Chopping down the Joshua Tree", that would have an element of POV. What it implies is that the band's history is a perfect arc that always managed to capture their intentions (most would agree Bono is one of the most eloquent people at talking about the importance of his own music, whereas there's a lot of disagreement over actually how it lives up to that hype).
In editing the article on Radiohead's Kid A, I originally named the subsections of the "Recording" section after quotes by the band. For instance, one section was called "How to be a participant in a song without playing a note" after a quote by one band member on their new recording philosophy, which I didn't think could be paraphrased any better. However, even this was reverted eventually, with the titles going back to neutral, duller ones, which is probably for the best, though it's hard to admit it as a fan of any given act. This quotes-for-titles is a practice you find in news features and magazine puff pieces but it doesn't work in an encyclopedia.
The only reason to use it for this U2 section is because the names of both their two recent albums are so ridiculously long that it's a bit awkward to use them as the section title, but maybe that points to a need for different section titles all through this page. U2 have so many albums, and most people are not familiar with all the album names. Instead of just naming the sections after the albums and tours as seems appropriate with bands with shorter careers, maybe each section could get a more descriptive (but not a POV quote) title for what went on during the period in terms of U2's music approach and/or popularity. 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "Reapplying for Best Band In The World" is too POV. We at least have it referenced later in the section now. No one is saying THEY ARE the best band, they just tried to be. Not too POV at all. The idea of changing the other section names to some kind of similar format is pretty cool, but I'll stay neutral on that one. -- Reaper X 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Best" will always turn a wiki editor's head. My only question is if it applies to the last album/tour. If not, it would be like calling section 1.5 "Achtung Baby."--Berol 16:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation requests explained...

Hi all. In preparing for another FAC, I've gone through and I have identified areas where our inline citations can be improved. Don't misunderstand me on this one: (a) we already have an excellently referenced article, but there are a number of holes still and (b) I am NOT questioning the veracity of any of the sentences labelled, or suggesting they be removed, rather - they just need in-line cites.

I can probably find a lot of them and none look too hard. I hope others can help. thanks --Merbabu 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I've hidden the following:

On the subsequent War Tour, the band performed to sold-out concerts in mainland Europe and the U.S. for the first time.

My reliable sources show that they were selling out European and US concerts before the War tour. Merbabu 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks for FA

In the lead:

  1. By the mid-1980s, however, the band had released several successful albums and developed a devoted international following, largely from extensive touring. → Why don't you name how many albums instead of "several successful", and I got a difficulty to understand what is "a devoted international following".
  2. U2 became noted for its anthemic sound that emphasised Bono's vocals and The Edge's textural approach to guitar playing, as well as the band's political and social activism. → What is "anthemic sound"? I couldn't find a related wiki article for that. Is it a sound of an anthem? And perhaps due to my limited knowledge about "anthemic sound" that makes me confuse of the relation between Bono as vocals and The Edge's characteristic guitar playing with the band's political and social views. The sentence is meaningless to me.
  3. I think the second paragraph in the lead has problems to understand. For instance, it says there is a transformation of the band in 1991, but transformation of what? The story jumps directly to a transformation. Okay, you might argue that readers should read the rest of the article, but according to WP:LEAD, the lead should be able to stand alone, which is not in this case. The lead should represent a concise overview of the article, but not without a story flow to follow. In fact, the lead is the advertising part of the article to suggest a reader to continue reading to the rest of the article. I don't think (if I want to study about U2) I want to go further as the first paragraphs have already confused me. I might want to find another website describing about the band.

I have promised to someone to criticize this article. I stop at the lead first. I will continue with the rest of the article later. The current lead is still in a bad shape and it only contains too many overblown terms. — Indon (reply) — 08:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Indon. I've tried to address your points. What do you think? It's hard to explain further in the space limitations of the lead. Also, 'anthemic' is a reasonably common term to describe music - ie, it comes from the word 'anthem' and is meant to describe grand rock songs with big choruses, etc. Merbabu 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That's better. — Indon (reply) — 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Three of the band said in Pop interviews (and Brian Eno somewhere, too) that they were going to release Original Soundtracks as U2. Bono grumbled in print somewhere that the label said no. He tried to save it with a marketing plan proposal, but it didn't change the label's mind. They were good businessmen and covered it up for 2-3 years which makes sourcing that quite difficult. --Berol 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


I saw in an edit that Image:U2-teenagers.jpg was missing a licence, because the uploader didn't know. So I've slapped {{promophoto}} on it, that should save it from deletion. It already has a FU rationale, so it's good to go. -- Reaper X 03:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

College Rock?

I looked at the College Rock article and it had U2 listed. Was that a mistake or is College Rock suppost to be in the Genre area? CRBR 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit question re: "band" and "group" and tense

Hi all. I am with the League of Copyeditors and have a style question. I have tried to stay aware of the UK's plural usage when refering to a band by name (i.e., "U2 are..."), but I am struggling with the words "band" and "group". In American English, these are singular terms that denote a group of people and therefore use a singule-tense verb, (i.e., "The band is..." or "The group is..."). To treat this as a plural, you'd have to specify the indvidiuals in the group, by saying, say "The band's members are". I've noticed substantial inconsistency throughout the article (is it just a US/UK English issue?) and would appreciate a final ruling before I go in and make universal changes. Please advise. Galena11 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


See hidden comments within article text starting with COPYEDITOR'S NOTE for issues/questions that I couldn't clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galena11 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, many thanks. It's a great improvement to have a fresh set of eyes (and wise eyes at that too), so much so that it would be great to have more fresh copy editors. Ie, you've fix so many obvious deficiencies that I overlooked over and over. Do you know anyone else who would be interested? cheers --Merbabu 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Also note that in many instances, you edited the article to use singular verbs when referring to U2, although British English states that bands are pluralized. Y2kcrazyjoker4 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but that's a minor issue in comparison to the vast improvements they have made. Thanks again. --Merbabu 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

New album

Shouldn't we put some info about the new album for 2008, the band has been recording for the last year-year and a half? I know that some purists from here don't want any kind of info. But come on guys, the band recorded the album first with Rick Rubin, then with Eno and Lanois, there should be more info about it.

Regards: Painbearer 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this. You look at virtually any other article who have had their most recent album out for a while and there's always a 'Future' or 'New Album' section. Why doesn't U2 have one? HTDAAB is nearly 3 years old! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon adding detailed discography

An anon has added detailed listings to the discography section. This is over the top for detail and should be removed, but they show no sign of discussing, or even leaving an edit summary. --Merbabu 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Retry for FA

So it's been a while since the last FAC...half a year in fact, and the article has come a long way. Does anybody agree that this should be peer reviewed and have the FAC renewed? Note: check out the latest archive -- Reaper X 05:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

lol - last time I think it was suggested by someone that there was too much facts, dates, chart positions,etc, at the expense of context (I agreed and much has since changed). Another reviewer (later?) said there was too much context and colour!?!?! Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "Musical Style" and "Influences" sections. "Musical Styles" repeats a lot of the info in History - yet, remove it from History and it almost becomes a discography list - back to the excessive fact page. They need tightening up at least - as does the Campaigning section, which like "Influences" is very listy with topics of questionable notability.
I am glad that the repetitive listing of all their singles, Grammys, videos, etc is no longer here and will do my best to make sure those irrelevancies are left to the discography page.
Before an FAC, I would like to ensure that the good prose we had after the WP:LOCE copyedit is still intact. Also, I think it needs work and review by people who do not spend most of their wikipedia time on pop culture articles. Such articles are often (always?) of the worst quality. FAC requires us to be better than that standard. I would't spend too much time trying to compare this article to such low standard articles - unless there is an exceptional high standard band article that someone can suggest.
Thoughts? --Merbabu (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "Musical Styles" is bad, but "Influences definitely needs some work. Less listing of artist's names, and more of how and where they provided influence. "Campaigning and activism" could also use less specific names and more colourful prose.
In general though, I think this is excellent. Of course pop culture articles are sometimes going to be of bad quality, it's just their nature. That's exactly why I only raised the bar of making Billy Talent a GA; I just didn't have the sources or ability to make the prose encyclopedic gold. Alot of effort has to go into crafting outstanding prose from dozens and dozens of sources. So it's obvious to me there has been alot of work put into this article, and IMO it beats those "low standard articles" out of the water, therefore it is one of the pop articles that is most deserving of FA status for that.
I think we need to prepare this article as much as possible before making it an FAC, to give it the best chance. A peer review, followed by another request to WP:LOCE? Those are my thoughts. -- Reaper X 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take another shot at the aricle once I wrap up my FA projects at the end of the month. Not only that, but I picked up the U2 by U2 hardcover for only eight dollars on clearance. WesleyDodds 05:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

8 bucks?! What a score! I've had a lookthrough of that book, that should provide some good and citable material. -- Reaper X 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly a great resource - I have used it a lot on wikipedia, and much more could go into all the U2-related articles. I feel though that most (almost all?) of the most important points for a general "mother" article such as this are in the article - and come from a wide variety of sources, and referenced not just U2 by U2. We need to be very careful about length. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The main advantage of having the book in my possession is that I can refer to it if I need to reword or remove something. Also, it helps clarify points. The bit about them being influenced by Joy Division kept getting removed a while back, but then on you turn to page 92 of the book and in it U2 talk about how great they were and how they were their favorite band at the time. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course - it's fine as a back up source for any other source that is questioned. It's certainly an outstanding source and we've used it here a fair bit. As long as we keep a diversity of reliable references, particularly as U2 by U2 is not an independent source. There's nothing wrong with combining two or more sources in the one footnote. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


The section "Reapplying for the best band in the world" covers too much time. The other sections all cover no more than 3 years, this one covers 6 years and counting. I tried changing it and somebody changed it, so I'm bringing it here to be properly discussed. Also Bono has said that the album has a new sound to it, unlike the last two which were intended to recreate their old albums. That's a change in style as far as I'm concerned, and it merits a new section. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually eight years, not six, =P. I suppose that it could be reduced to the years 2000-2002, covering All That You Can't Leave Behind, the Elevation Tour, the Superbowl performance, and The Best of 1990-2000. The second part could then cover the years 2004-present and include How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, the Vertigo Tour, U218 Singles, U2-3D, and any relevant/necessary information on the creation of the next album. Any thoughts? MelicansMatkin 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a previous (and valid) criticism that this article had too many sections - in my opinon it still does. This came up in previous FA's and related discussions. It used to have 1 section per album. Sorry, but the 2000 to 2006 period is consistent thematically ("back to basic" to generalise), whereas 1980 to 1985 is not (War vs UF periods are completely different).
Please do not make it two sections - we don't need all these details about U218 singles and 3D. Such tedium was one of the biggest criticisms at FA. As befitting of an FA standard article, please keep this article broad, not detailed.
Thanks --Merbabu 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I am in agreement. MelicansMatkin 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the section's length is very similar to the other ones as is. I give it two thumbs up. -- Reaper X 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
My comments above were specifically about sectioning and not so about the current length of the section. I feel it doesn't need to be longer - yet. Possibly though it could be trimmed a little, or copy-edited for prose. Thoughts? --Merbabu 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to make a new section, the "back to the basics" period is over from what ive heard. 75pickup 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75pickup (talkcontribs)
That's speculation. I don't see a good reason to create a new section. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict): Saying that it is or isn't over is pure speculation. Until new material is actually released, there's no reason to change anything. The current section covers everything fine. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
75pickup, sorry if it seems harsh, but the consensus seems to be not yet. Let's wait til something really substantial changes and there is something worthy of a whole new section. Remember, wikipedia is not a news or gossip section but an encyclopedia - it's OK if it's behind the latest news. Don't take it personal (not that I think you are) and keep up the good work on the U2 related articles. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FA nom

Just wanted to drop a note that the article looks better than ever. I just added refs for all the remaining "citations needed". At this point, I agree with Reaper X's comments above -- would anybody be peeved if I submitted for another FA nomination (or shall we go for a peer review)? It's been a while since the last one, and it would be good to get some feedback. Thanks. Wikipedia brown (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't hear anything back so I nominated the article for a Peer Review. Wikipedia brown (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the Peer Review, so I nominated for FA. Wikipedia brown (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

October: Radio Play?

Its stated that: "The album met with mixed reviews and received no radio play". It is true that it received mixed reviews due in part to the more serious aspects of the messages in the album tracks, but it is totally incorrect to say it got no radio play. It in fact got extensive radio play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If so, please feel free to add the information and cite it. Thank you! Best, Keilanatalk 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I dont have a source to hand, other than my own ears at the time, and no doubt Dave Fanning (of RTE Radio 2) played it extensively on his nightly radio show, as did others. Gloria was a popular hit, the album was eagerly anticipated after the Boy album and was played in its entirety on the radio after its release, track by track.

I also dont have a source that it rained in Ireland in 1981 the year of October's release, but I assure you it did. Gloria and other tracks from the album were included in U2's playset for many years afterwards.

By the way, there is no source cited that it received no radio play ! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added this. There IS a source (Adam Clayton) in U2 by U2 by McCormick, page 120, as cited in the article on that same line:
Adam (Clayton):"It was a period of great uncertainty on many levels. [October] didn't do particularly well. The deal that Island Records had done with Warner Brothers in America was coming to an end, so there wasn't much of a push being given to their product and it was hard to get tour support. There was no radio play, so we were depending on word of mouth, and it wasn't really happening."
Now, he may be implying that there was very little radio play so feel free to edit it if you feel that you can better capture the spirit of Adam's quote.
Wikipedia brown (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I have the book beside me. I think Adam may have been referring to little radio play and lack of a push from the record companies, perhaps in the US. "No Radio Play" is also a hiberno-english euphemism for "not as much as expected" eg: there was no-one there, doesnt actually mean there were no people at a gig, for example. It is clear that the record was not as expected. As Bono says on the same page of the book, perhaps they listened to too much Joy Division. It was a melancholic piece of work, and is oft overlooked. By the way, we shouldnt take what any of the 4 lads say as gospel. On the same page Bono states that Hanover Quay is in the centre of new Dublin. He's out by a couple of miles! (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I found out that Gloria peaked at No.10 in the Irish Charts, and was in the charts for 4 weeks, whereas Fire reached No.4 before that and was in the charts for 9 weeks. Both of these were a lot more succesful than Out of Control (from Boy) which only managed No.19. Source: (page down for U2's list). I've updated the Gloria page with that data. (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FA Promotion

Let me be the first to congratulate everyone who has worked so hard on this article to promote it to FA. Merbabu and WikipediaBrown, you two should be especially proud of all the time and effort you have put into this. Congratulations guys! MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Great job, guys! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you two (U2? pardon the pun)! I think Merbabu did most of the work sprucing this article up over the last couple of years (his edits must be in the thousands for this article alone) and handling the nomination comments (I couldn't hold him back from it if I tried, which I didn't), as well as writing all that wonderful prose you see in the article. Of course, in addition to his unparalleled efforts, there were many, many others who contributed quite a bit as well over the last two years, so congratulations are in order for all those others too (Y2kcrazyjoker, RattleandHum, Kristbg, WesleyDodds, Dudesleeper, etc). Great work, all! Wikipedia brown (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments. I was surprised it was promoted as quickly as it was but the article is no less deserving. It was a huge and long collaborative effort; well done to WP Brown in particular for all his tedious efforts to fix countless little things, and for the whole sections he wrote. He was the one with the balls and initiative to actually nominate it - which I didn't have! --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I am disappointed that the article got promoted so quickly (less than a week at FAC). I was about to leave some comments at the FAC when I discovered the article listed at the Featured Articles page. There still some issues that needs to be taken care of. One is that not all the references are formatted properly (there's some web references that only list the page name). Another is that the prose in the Influences and Campaigning and Activism section is still weak. I'd like to do some involved work on the page to alleviate some of my concerns, if no one minds. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Influences" and "Campaigning and Activism" could be tightened both in terms of length and prose. There are stronger sections in the article. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, by all means, there is life after FA. By the way, I noticed in the Formation section, there's no mention of how Adam Clayton got involved in the band at the get go. An oversight? Wikipedia brown (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I must also applaud you two for your work. It went way beyond my expectations when I suggested a retry for FA earlier. Now the article is better than ever. Congrats, you should be proud. -- Reaper X 04:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.