Talk:U2/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Articles up for deletion...

Timeline of U2 and List of covers of U2 songs are up for deletion. --Merbabu (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone redesign

It looks like most of, if not, all of the links we had to Rolling Stone articles are going to be deadlinks now, as their website has/is being redesigned. From what I can tell, most of their content will go into a paid membership archive, so old reviews and cover stories may not be available again. I think we should do a triple-check of all the Rolling Stone sources we have used in U2 articles and make sure they 1.) are replaced with print versions of the articles, 2.) have accurate citation information filled in, 3.) are archived if still available on the web or 4.) are replaced by entirely different references altogether. Keep an eye out for the changes to their site as they continue to occur. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Choice "4" is not necessary, indeed, it's not really helpful. WIkipedia policy does not require that we remove info or have to find alternate sources because a link goes dead. --Merbabu (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

U2 project

Hmmm - while I'm not against reforming the project, there are only really four regular contributors to this (small) topic area, and we don't want to tie ourselves down with project coordination when we could be out there editing, and just using this page. As long as we don't spend too much time on admin project work. --Merbabu (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I never thought of it as a small topic, but you four do contribute a lot to U2 articles. Reäctivating the project might be a bit much for such a small active group of major contributors. Considering i am also an avid reader, thank you. delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be simpler if instead of standing as our own WikiProject we scale down and make it a taskforce, since it really is a four-five member group of editors; probably of Irish music and Rock would work if we go down that route (though I crave to be interviewed by The Signpost beforehand! =P). Pull up a chair and join in, DaL; new members with fresh eyes and perspective are always welcome! Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I edit every so often in the U2 area (and watchlist most of the articles) but you four do most everything i think of and the other 87% is things i would never have thought of, hence i enjoy reading. I added a couple of references to the PopMart DVD the other day; nothing special but at least it no longer has zero references. I had written a section on the controversy re the Mexican president's sons and that concert but as it doesn't relate to the DVD itself i decided not to save it. I then went and undid vandalism on the Portuguese version of the article :) Maybe i could get into writing for the Signpost and then interview you. I do have a few tv documentaries kicking around and right now i am reëncoding Bono on Larry King from 1 December 2002 (the CNN transcript, if it is still available, has so many "unintelligible" that are easily understood if you watch the video :P ). If anyone wants it i guess you could email me.
I do have a bit of a wonderment. The singles first released in Canada... some articles treat those as the release date while others don't. There seems to be no pattern regarding which dates goes in the infobox. Any particular reason why? delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 00:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think that background regarding the Mexican President's sons could work in the article; perhaps in a "Background" section, or in a "Recording" one (after all, Bono does reference it on the DVD ('We almost lost a brother last night'), so it could fit quite easily; a couple of sentences at the least). As for the release dates, it's probably just inconsistency. The general thing nowadays is to put the first release date in the infobox and mention any others in the prose, but it hasn't really been "enforced" (for lack of a better word) until the last year or so (in the U2 articles at least; I think we first became aware of it when No Line on the Horizon was released and there was a lot of edit warring in the infobox). Another possibility is that Canada is just not considered a major enough market for the release to eb mentioned, even if it was the first territory. Generally it seems to be the US and the UK are considered, with special dispensation given to Ireland since it's their base. Kind of disappointing as a Canadian myself, but what can you do. Canada and the US are generally released at the same time, so I try to work it into the text as often as I can (and in the case of charts and certifications, I added RPM, Canoe Jam! and/or Billboard data into every article I could when I revamped the tables last year; not a major thing, just me injecting a bit of my national pride in as subtle a manner as I could! =P). Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus change?

Since someone has to initiate this discussion and the other party doesn't seem to be willing, I suppose that I'd better kick this off. For years now the wording of the opening sentence of this article has been "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland." I believe that this wording has been established since the successful FAC. As frequent contributors to this article know, the reasons behind this word choice are many and varied. Although all the band members attended school in Ireland, two of them (Clayton and Edge) were born in England for one, and at least one of those two (Edge) still holds an English passport instead of an Irish one. Every so often, random IPs come through and change the wording to something along the lines of "U2 are an Irish rock band from Dublin, Ireland", often altering the inline note as well. This is generally reverted fairly quickly, since it goes against the previously established consensus.

However, earlier today when this change by an IP was reverted, it was altered back again by DC. The reason provided was "I don't think there's consensus if everyone wants to change it." I don't consider a few random IPs to constitute "everyone", and so I reverted back again and invited DC to open a discussionon the talk page if they believed the consensus really had changed. This was reverted again almost instantly without providing any rationale or justification; twice, in fact. A second request on DC's talk page to open discussion on Talk:U2 if they really believed the consensus had changed was also quickly reverted. Hence my post here, re-opening this discussion to see if consensus over the wording of the opening sentence has really changed? Thoughts? Comments? Justifications for any alterations? Please state your opinions so we can really see if the consensus over the wording has changed or not and we can avoid any more edit-warring. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with the 'band from Dublin Ireland' as there are British Subjects in the band, and frankly, bands don't have citizenship anyway. It has been like this, and just fine, for a long time and I see no reason to change it now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've fully protected this for three days to prevent the edit war and avoid having to block people. This also gives time for a discussion to take place here and to (re)-establish consensus. If, after that time, people want to continue the edit-war I will have no alternative but to block. --John (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the wording that says "rock band from Dublin, Ireland". There are several issues that have been pointed out with the word "Irish rock band". Unless you are an Irish citizen trying to influence some patriotism into the article, I see no explanation why you would even try to change the wording. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This has indeed always been a ridiculous discussion and I support keeping the “band from Ireland” wording.
For the record, in my opinion there should be no problem in saying “Irish band” for a number of reasons including those stated above by other editors. In my opinion, they are obviously Irish. However, in the fundamentally important interests of finding and maintaining a workable consensus, I recommend that “band from Dublin/Ireland” is perfectly accurate, neutral, grammatical, and in all other ways adequate – with the simple advantage of it neutralising the issue of whether the band is "Irish" or not. The band was formed, and has been continually based in Dublin. If people want to know the life history of the individual band members, including their passport details and the limited time they lived in other countries as very young children, then they can look at the individual biographies – and make their own assessment of their personal Irishness or otherwise.
In the meantime, let’s stick to “band from Dublin/Ireland”, and spend our time more productively on things that are actually worthwhile working on and discussing. --Merbabu (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Reminds me of the days of "Oasis is an English band" vs "Oasis are a British band" and other variants. I await the edit that changes it to "U2 is a French band" because of their homes there :P ... but seriously, the accuracy, neutrality, and grammatical correctness of "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland" works very well pour moi. Anonymous editors are, it seems, forever changing it. That DC (talk · contribs · logs) insists upon restoring their edits while avoiding all discussion on the matter shows me a lack of interest in honestly addressing the matter. While i prefer "Acrobat" to WTSHNN i still find this edit by DC to be rather grinding. delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 00:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(Point of note: DC actually created that userbox, so he's pretty free to change it however he wishes. I made the same mistake when reverting that edit). Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(Response to point of note: I know DC made it. The "Streets" user box is transcluded in good faith onto a few user pages. Did they want to have the message from "Acrobat" on their user pages? The change of message when it is in a pool of user boxes is deceptive IMO, and the timing of the change seemed more than coïncidental, hence i cited it.) delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 04:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a little curious but was it intentional to remove the move protection? It went away with the expiration of the full protection a couple of days ago. It's tempting. I've always wished there were such a comprehensive article for Passengers ;) delirious & lost~talk to her~ 08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The drive to FA

With "City of Blinding Lights" becoming the second U2-related Featured Article, there are lots of other articles we can focus on that can reach a similar status. If we all work together, it shouldn't take an exceptionally long time to get those articles up to that level. Here are the articles which are probably closest to FA, followed by those which could become GA fairly shortly as well. I've tried to narrow them down to four categories: Ready for FAC (should be ready for nomination following a few tweaks), Not quite there (about halfway between GA and FA; needs a bit more work until it's ready), Ready for GAN (should be ready for nomination following a few tweaks), and On the road (better and more informative than most articles, but needs a bit more before nominating). This is basically a consolidation of previous discussions above and from my talk page, posted here for easy access of use (and as an update):

Nearly ready for FAC
  • Achtung Baby - needs a copyedit and possibly addition of how the breakup of Edge's marriage affected the sessions.
    • I received the 33 1/3 book some months ago - while very interesting, it is all full of opinion, and perhaps 70% of it gets right off the track of album and into religious discussions. THere might be some info that's OK for individual songs but it's not an easy one for the album article. --Merbabu (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • U2 3D - very nearly made it to A-class; it certainly isn't far off the mark. Should get DoL's say-so first as he's the man contributor (per FAC rules).
Not quite there, but not far off
  • "Sunday Bloody Sunday" - nearly made it through FAC a year or two ago; polish, source, and add info regarding it's legacy (maybe remove "Other versions" too).
  • "Where the Streets Have No Name" - split the PSB into another article, beef up reception and the references, and give it a copyedit.
  • "Zooropa (song)" - needs a little work, but is fairly close. Ask DoL per U2 3D above.
Recently promoted to GA
Ready for GAN
  • "One (U2 song)" - as per "Streets"; beef up, source, and split MJB into a new article. Put through GAN and PR and it won't be far off from FAC.
  • U2 360° Tour - just waiting on the rest of the 2010 support acts to be announced (four dates left), plus some ref additions/alterations.
  • The Unforgettable Fire - flesh out some sections, source, and prose polish. Very close.
    • This still needs some work, but I'm going to nominate it now for a peer review. I'll continue to work on it particularly the composition section (no promises though) and hopefully by the time peer review is done, then it's ready for a GAN. --Merbabu (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Update: I have dug up a few reviews which I will add soon. And more importantly, I have printed out a paper copy and covered it in red ink and I hope to transfer this to the article in the next few days. The composition section is a bit ordindary and I’d like to structure it loosely into a music then lyrics order of things (as much as it can be without being overally strict) – much like we did with Achtung Baby recently. There are still a few sources that should be consulted/checked but (apart from the composition section) it's already a quality article as it is. There are no real holes rather the other sources might provide a bit of garnish. --Merbabu (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Zoo TV Tour - few more references and some copyediting needed: nominated
On the road to GAN
  • Bono - Prose polish, source, and ensure it is neutal POV; build a little more if possible (always more to add!)
  • Pop (album) - expand a few sections and source more thoroughly.
  • "Stand Up Comedy (song)" - might be a bit of a stretch, but if Composition can really be fleshed out it will be very close.
  • "Unknown Caller" - between "MoS" and "SUC"; bit more for Composition, and it will probably be ready.
  • "With or Without You" - there's more than enough information out there for this article to really be fleshed out.
  • Zooropa - flesh out Release and Reception, and maybe Composition. Do a bit more on the reference front and it should be ready.

Others that are at GA now but not really that close to FAC yet include Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky, and War Tour. I think I have included all of the main contenders. The rest of the articles are not yet at a level where they can be considered anywhere close to GAN (unless there are some I'm forgetting). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think U2 3D is ready for an FAC, but I'm still skeptical. It sat in A-class review for 2½ months last year and then was just marked as "Failed" one day with no reason stated. I was thinking about another peer review, but if others don't think it's necessary, then I'd say go for it. Zooropa (song) is also coming along well, and needs some work before an FAC but its not too far off, like you said –Dream out loud (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Chalk that one up to either a backlog or a lack of reviewers; GAN, PR, and FAC have all had similar problems recently. I'd say to just go for it and nominate; I'm not really sure if a Peer Review could accomplish much for it at this point. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No Line on the Horizon has been nominated for the third time. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And promoted. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Former members

The article states that U2 was formed in 1976, originally as Feedback before the band changed its name to The Hype in 1977 and then settling on the name U2 in 1978. If this is the case then the former members section should include the band members which left prior to the band settling on the name U2. If it is not the case, then the band's formation should be 1978. We can't have it both ways. I'm more inclined that the first of my two options would be preferable. What do others think? --JD554 (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point. I would find it hard to argue that the band's date of formation is anything other than 1976, since that's what most sources would credit it as... in which case, we would have to consider their time as Feedback and The Hype as part of the group's chronology. As far as past members go, I would find it hard to call Martin a former member if he played with them for one practice. The other two might be worth including in the former members section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion

Just looking through a few of the images in this article and I noticed that the PopMart Tour image is nominated for deletion at Commons. In fact, the whole PopMart set uploaded by the user is nominated. If these files go, it looks like it will affect the articles U2, PopMart Tour, and 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo. I don't think there are any others, but I may have missed something. Best start looking for replacements in case they do go. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the nomination is laughable to begin with. If it were to pass, what's there to stop all live photos of concert stages from being deleted? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I use one of those in my U2 user box! On all sorts of wiki, thanks to it being on Commons. I pop into U2 editing for a bit and find all the PopMart images up for deletion :P I added my opinion on Commons. "Let's go shopping" for full res copies of all of the pictures. Face-wink.svg delirious & lost~нuɢѕ~ 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else have pictures from PopMart? Apparently you can't take pictures in Italy. delirious & lost~hugs~ 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. Maybe there are some on Flickr that we will be able to use and transfer over under the appropriate license... Anybody know how that process works? Quite a few articles have been affected by this removal. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll take care of finding a suitable replacement on Flickr, assuming there is one. But future reference, this is how you would go about it. On the advanced search page of Flickr, check the "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content" box, along with the "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon" box. This will limit the results to Creative Commons material. When you find a picture you think qualifies, visit the picture page and click on the copyright details at the bottom. If you get redirected to page with a license that displays a "Certified for creative works" badge, it's good to go. Then you can use User:Flickr upload bot to take care of the uploading for you (assuming you already have a Wikicommons account). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that was disappointing. The best free pictures available were mostly by one user who would not license them under a free enough license. I'm curious whether we can have those deleted photos re-uploaded, but this time just to Wikipedia (not commons), and this time, under a non-free license. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How about avoiding the usage of "are" or "is" all together?

There is one sentence that has the words "U2 are" in this article. If we fix the first sentence to "U2 , a rock band from Dublin, Ireland, consists of Bono (vocals and guitar), The Edge (guitar, keyboards, and vocals), Adam Clayton (bass guitar), and Larry Mullen, Jr. (drums and percussion)." then everyone will be happy, right?--Pooh4913 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It extends beyond that, though. When considering the difference between "are" and "is" you also have to pick and choose between "were" and "was", among other word selections. So while it may solve the issue in that one sentence, it doesn't do anything for the rest of the article. For that reason I think it best to keep the current wording, so that the inline note can also be kept in a location where users who want to alter the variation of English will see it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
And it doesnt even fix that sentence. It would be the difference between consist/consists (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Discography protocol

I didn't immediately see an answer in looking for this, so sorry if this is prevously coverd territory..

Is it usual in wiki articles on bands to list only their studio albums? In the discography section, the studio albums are listed, but live albums like "Under a blood red sky", etc are not. I can understand not wanting to add every EP/single/b-side/greatest hits compilation/etc, but the live albums seem worth a mention, especially since they are listed in the discography article.

thoughts? (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it is a usual practice. The live album(s) are listed under their own separate heading on U2 discography, and at a quick glance the majority of them appear to have been fanclub-exclusive releases (Hasta La Vista Baby, Slane Castle, Zoo TV Live, etc). It's simpler to keep it simply at fresh studio material; compilations and sideprojects (such as Original Soundtracks 1) are also not listed for this reason. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


THe EDUN article was marked for speedy deletion. While it meets notability criteria, it is appallingly written. Anyone want to help rescue it. There are a number of media articles out there that I've read. archives might be a good place to start. --Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Only a brief mentioning of their appearance on The Simpsons

Their appearance on The Simpsons is only one sentence long. Is it notable enough to get more info on this page?--Souvalou (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No. This article is about 30+ years of the band's history. A 2 minute pop culture appearance 13 years ago (about the length of all their scenes combined) is not deserving of any more detail because it would be of undue weight (I believe the relevant link is WP:UNDUE). Any other information regarding this appearance should go the article for the episode in question. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish or from Ireland?


U2 are an "Irish band" and the opening sentenced will change as follows:
      U2 are an Irish rock band formed in Dublin in 1976.

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.

Why does it not state that this band is first and foremost an Irish band? All the member have stated that they are Irish, it is obvious this article has been hijacked by a group of bigoted editors, who do not want ,possibly the most succesful rock band in the world, to be labelled as Irish, due to their political agendas masqueraded as editorial policy.Sheodred (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Settle down - it's dumb way to start a conversation with accusations of "hijacking", "bigotry", and "political agendas", and it's plain WP:UNCIVIL and fails WP:AGF. You've been around here long enough to know better. --Merbabu (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know I should know better, but I am starting to see this all over Wikipedia regarding Irish figures, and yes I know what I stated fails WP:AGF and WP:UNCIVIL,but my patience is wearing thin with articles being subverted to poor standards and the certain motivations of a few, I know you may think it sounds dumb but its true,but one must be sensationalist sometimes to attract dialogue.Sheodred (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Or you could have simply posted this message like a normal, civilized person and we would have seen the message all the same. The rationale behind not saying Irish is simple - only half of the band was born in Ireland, the others were born in the UK and moved to Ireland in their youth. Nationality is a tricky issue and instead of making things complicated and keeping a statement that can be debated, we are wording their origin in a plain, simple way which gets the exact same point across. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 04:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that "U2 are an Irish band" is better. However, if it helps "consensus" (and it has in the past) I can also accept "U2 are a band from Ireland" as there have been many who have challenged the former statement. The first 10 seconds of this video suggest that the band are happy either way too - in fact, Bono's words here are uncanny. --Merbabu (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
All the other articles in every other language except the english one, state specifically that they are an "Irish rock band", why should it be different with the english version?Sheodred (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Because a group of editors doesn't want it to be changed. DC TC 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
A vote should be done.Sheodred (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if the editors who dispute "Irish band" are still around, but an attempt should be made to include them in any discussion on this topic. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 19:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we should wait five days, and after those 5 days if the majority opposes it, then I will accept it.Sheodred (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Funny that Oasis is listed as an English rock band even though Andy Bell is Welsh... I would support the change to Irish rock band. Bjmullan (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Result= Irish is being put back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheodred (talkcontribs) 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy; votes count for nothing. Did you even bother to contact any of the editors who have previously been involved in discussions on this subject? I know that I certainly did not get a message about this discussion on my talk page. Consensus hasn't changed just because you said "lets wait five days" and then didn't bother to get in touch with any interested parties. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support change to "Irish band". Band was formed in Ireland, is comprised of either Irish-born or residents of Ireland, and features Irish themes in their songwriting. Melicans, this is not a RFC, or a XFD discussion, I don't believe notifiying you is a requirement before changes are made. Consensus, judging by the above thread, does appear to be moving towards the "Irish band" inclusion, although Sheodred's change may have been a bit hasty (in his/her defense, we are encouraged to be BOLD) As you have reverted the change, can you please defend your position? The Interior(Talk) 21:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification is a simple courtesy that should be extended to all people, regardless of where the material is being discussed. A proper discussion with a proper outcome can not occur if only one side is aware that the discussion is even taking place.
I oppose simply for accuracy reasons. The band was formed in Ireland, and two members were born there. However the other two were born in England and, so far as the last time I heard, are both considered residents there since they both use the English passport. The band may be from Ireland, but I seriously doubt they can be considered an Irish band when only half of the members are actually Irish. It is the reason why I support the current wording of "a rock band from Dublin, Ireland". It is more accurate and it gets the point across. That there are Irish themes in their music is not a strong argument; half of their material in the 1980s, and a fair bit in the years after, strongly feature American themes and inspirations, but that by no means makes them an American band; The Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum in particular were saturated with "America".
And before anyone starts thinking I'm being a "bigoted editor" who doesn't want U2 to be called Irish "due to their political agendas masqueraded as editorial policy", I will just point out now that, like The Interior, I am a Canadian, that I have been a Canadian for my entire life, and I do not have a bigoted or a political agenda; I'm probably about as neutral as you can get ;-). In fact, I don't think there are people who regularly edit the U2 articles that could be considered biased in any manner, except for their enjoyment of the music; at my last count of the five main editors there are three Americans, one Australian, and one Canadian. It simply does not make sense to me to label U2 as an Irish band when that may not even be accurate. Do the Irish consider U2 to be one of their bands? Of course, and it doesn't surprise me that they would think so. But being a band from Ireland is a very different thing from being an Irish band. U2 have often described themselves as "a band of the world", so I would suggest that they don't particularly care either way. :-) Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been opposed to the wording "Irish band" merely because the consensus had been established and I did not want edit warring, but if we are going to revisit this topic, I would support "Irish band". The band considers themselves to be Irish - Bono's introduction of the band at Live Aid in 1985 bears this out. Two of the members were born there, one has lived there since age 1, and the other first lived there at age 5. For the longest time, the band was headquartered there, lived and raised their families there. If either Adam or The Edge have ever called themselves British or English, that would be one thing, but I don't believe the band ever identified themselves with England/Britain, particularly when discussing the conditions of Ireland compared to their neighbors. As far as I know, all of them are citizens of Ireland. Heck, their live DVD U2 Go Home is named in reference to their appearance at Slane Castle in Ireland. If this isn't enough, I would say we try and find a wide range of reliable sources that refer to them as an Irish to support.
With that said, you can't start a dispute, wait 5 days, and after exactly zero activity, simply claim the consensus has changed. That isn't how a consensus is built whatsoever. Plus, I doubt a lot of people in the US would be available to chime in since it's the holiday weekend. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
After a bit of research, I can see this is going to be a difficult one, as nationality is both a legal status and a self-identified concept, and bands don't have passports As a humourous aside, Melicans, I am Irish-born (so legally Irish), a Canadian citizen (so legally Canadian), but self-identify as Canadian. So I guess I feel as Y2kcrazyjoker4 does, that if U2 say they're Irish, and identify Ireland as "home", we should use the demonym. But I agree that applying it is problematic as well, perhaps ORey. Sorry for being a bit snarky about the notification thing, discussion is what makes this place great, but I do feel it's an individual editor's responsibility to monitor the talk pages he/she is interested in, and if they missed the boat on a discussion, to restart it rather than revert changes made in the meantime. But that's procedural nit-picking. So. back on task - would it be significant, from a legal perspective, that the corporate entity of U2 is Ireland-based and therefore an "Irish" entity? The Interior(Talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I concede on the themes point, I guess by that rationale the Dropkick Murphys would be an Irish band. ;-) The Interior(Talk) 23:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I have 1977 individual pages on my watchlist, not including talk pages. Sometimes, especially in exam times like now, I miss edits and/or comments that are made; in this case, given the choice of heading and that it was posted a day after "City of Blinding Lights" was on the front page, and that the talk page for it had received negative comments under a similar heading, I chose to ignore it when seeing that Merbabu and Y2kcrazyjoker4 had responded since I thought it was just more people "raging" that U2 had been on the front page. When there were no more comments in the following days, I just put it out of my mind since most discussions tend to be long and drawn-out. But enough of that tangent.
I don't think it is overly significant. Something like 90%-95% of U2's business is based outside of Ireland, IIRC from the newspaper articles when they moved part of it out of the country a few years ago. I don't see it as providing a distinction one way or another between "Irish band" or "band from Ireland". It could be read either way quite easily. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realize how contentious previous discussions on this topic were. Check this out to see what I mean. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 05:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the band "is Irish" but saying they're "from Ireland" solves a lot of grief and is perfectly accurate. If we really want to change to "is Irish" I think we need to collect all the evidence/sources in one place to counter the argument that they are not. A change to "is Irish" is not a bad idea, but I suggest caution and question how important it actually is. IMO this debate is only marginally less pointless than the "U2 are - U2 is" debate. --Merbabu (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

All the members of U2 have lived in Ireland for almost their entire lives, its funny that this nationality issue is only related to a famous Irish band and not for example Oasis, you cannot call them an English band because one of them is Welsh, that is the rationale you are using, U2 is more Irish then Oasis is English if you want to use that comparison, and if so Oasis as an example cannot be stated as an English band in that case, if you want to go there.Sheodred (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on building consensus not “proof” as you put it. Wikipedia can say that Michael Jackson wrote Lord of The Rings if that is the consensus. Also, quit implying that this is some sort of nationalist-based bias. Of the three long term editors who have maintained the consensus to this point, one is Australian, one American, and one Canadian. We’re above your petty but long-standing Irish-British squabbles. It may not have been the intent, but framing our actions as such is completely against WP:AGF and if it continues I’m more than happy to report it to administrators. Instead of playing the nationalism card, maybe you could look up WP:RS that support U2 Irishness – hint: find sources that Edge and Adam consider themselves, but more importantly, U2 as being Irish. --Merbabu (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I edit articles about the subjects I am interested in, Sheodred. I have no interest in Oasis and have never even looked at, let alone edited, the Oasis article. If I did, I would have brought it up on Talk:Oasis years ago. I think you need to take some time to calm down if you want to avoid launching into any more bad-faith tirades that will get you nowhere in discussions with other editors. We're more than open to talk about it; but not if this is the attitude you keep bringing. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am fine, but it is you haas some kind of problem regarding the exclusion of mentioning the fact that U2 are in fact Irish, it is common knowledge, what do you have to gain by excluding that, but saying they are from Ireland, in fact why don't we exclude the nationality of every single band on wikipedia and just mention what country they are from (sarcasm). Don't be ridiculous.Sheodred (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── User:Sheodred has been blocked for 31 hours, beginning at 04:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC), due to his page reverting and edit warring. The user also sent threatened to report me to an admin after placing a warning on his talk page. I guess they will have to wait until they are unblocked to do so. But let's keep this discussion going and continue to keep it civil as most of the editors have been doing all along. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: - I know I suggested above that I was supportive, but I’m now saying no. Of course, if someone said U2 is an “Irish band”, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid (Irelid?), but “U2 are from Ireland” is superior. Melicans correctly points out that saying someone is “Irish”, “British”, “Australian”, or “Indonesian” as opposed to “are from” those places implies is inherently different and can indeed be controversial. “from Ireland” is perfectly accurate, and I’ve now realised that it is not just a clever way to avoid controversy, but it is actually *more* accurate. It’s not just a way to keep the piece, but for an encyclopedia (a opposed to pub conversation or music journalism), it is superior writing. This has nothing to do with other bands – there is no WP:PRECEDENCE policy although people can bleat that it is a much as they want - others will just stop listening sooner or later. And anyone who wants to frame it as some Irish-British thing can be reported for failing to WP:AGF (and quit it for your own sake - it’s just a great way to piss people off rather than influence them). Really, it’s time to move on – pushing for “U2 are Irish” over “U2 are from Ireland” provides no value. A waste of time already. Go and get a book from the library and start adding content to one of the millions of articles that need work. In line with the concept of consensus, if it is clear that I'm on my own here, i will of course accept the position of the rest - no attempts at "veto" from me. --Merbabu (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you alone in your opposition? I opposed the change earlier, though I did not bold it then (something I've now rectified just so that it is easier for others to see). Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Support let's be consistent with every other band's article. "The Beatles are an English band." "The Who are an English band." Hell, "AC/DC is an Australian band" despite their two main members being from Scotland. Why don't you people start a pissing contest there too? DC TC 07:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
What others do is a fairly weak argument. It begs the proverbial "would you jump off a cliff" question. Do what's best for this article based on the merits of this argument - not the (possibly stupid) position of other articles. --Merbabu (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's the "God Save the Queen" crowd who's driving this article of the cliff. DC TC 08:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"The God Save The Queen crowd"? Are you for real or just being a troll? Either way, you need to grow up and show some respect to good faith editors. No-one's accusing you of bad motives - bad arguments perhaps, but not bad faith.--Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting very tired of these bad-faith accusations that somehow a non-existant allegiance to the British crown from the three principal editors of the article is destroying the article. We're willing to debate respectfully and civilly; why can't anyone else? Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC "Irish band" or "band from Dublin, Ireland"

Is it preferable to refer to U2 in the lead as an "Irish band" or a "band formed in Dublin, Ireland" DC TC 08:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland." - both of the options you provide are new. please clarify. --Merbabu (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Just for your benefit, you should read this archived discussion on this very topic. We're not just blowing smoke or having this discussion for the sake of of entertaining ourselves. It's a complicated topic. Just because one article did something doesn't mean that it's best served for this article. The merits of each side's arguments should be considered, instead of writing off the discussion as unnecessary altogether. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if there is something from the book U2: An Irish Phenomenon that can be used to demonstrate that U2 is indeed Irish and that all band members identify as such. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually just checked the book out from the library this morning. I'll read through it and see what I can find. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
take a look at the chapter "Irishness and Independence" from above book on Google books: U2:An Irish Phenomenon by Visnja Cogan, just reading through it, but it appears that both Bono and this author are fairly emphatic on the demonym "Irish" to describe the band. Will read more and comment further. The Interior(Talk) 19:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "a band formed in Dublin, Ireland" is my own preference, for reasons that I think I have adequately explained above. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's a question for those supporting "band formed in Dublin." Are there any sources which do not refer to them as Irish? Has the band ever stated they are not Irish? If not, the claim that we cannot call them Irish because two members were born elsewhere is a synthetic one. DC TC 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Not until you answer why "U2 are from Ireland" is inaccurate. You actually haven't done that - you've just said you want "are Irish", that anyone who disagrees with this are biased (Australian, American, Canadian) British nationalists, and that other stuff exists.--Merbabu (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
PS - you don't understand WP:SYN. In fact, WP:SYN more strongly supports "from Ireland". labelling is a synthethis. If you're going to waste people's time and accuse good faith editors of bad faith, then at least come with decent arguments. --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And you haven't said why you prefer formed in Dublin (which isn't the same as from Ireland) outside of it's already that way. And if you feel I'm wasting your time, you're free to do something else. DC TC 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The article says "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland." That is what I support, and I have very clearly stated why - it's there for you to read. no need to repeat yet again. Skimming through all the above, it appears to be that you are the one who introduced the idea of "U2 are a band formed in Dublin Ireland", and I am not advocating this. Please correct me if this is incorrect. --Merbabu (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, this is why I shouldn't edit after long days at the office (though I could've sworn at one point it was founded or formed in Dublin). DC TC 03:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK - now confirming for everyone that your RFC concerns your proposed "U2 are and Irish band" vs. the existing "U2 are a band from Dublin, Ireland". Does this then change your argument? Do you feel that Ireland is now appropriately acknowledged? --Merbabu (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As far i see U2, i have always seen them regarded as an Irish band. Stating "Dublin, Ireland" to me is more controversial as it opens up the confusion with the island when the band is from the country, and i would rather support "Dublin, Republic of Ireland" than just Ireland. Though i don't really see whats the problem with stating "Irish band", its not like they were formed in Northern Ireland where calling them Irish would cause an arguement. Mabuska (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. "Dublin, Ireland" is the common way to refer to the city of Dublin and the country of Ireland, just as Irish is the common way to refer to someone from the country of Ireland. No one would ever confuse the statement "Dublin, Ireland" as generalizing Dublin into the greater island.
I think the hardest thing to define is what makes a group of people a certain nationality. Is it where they formed the group (Ireland)? Is it the individual birthplaces of the members? Is it the combined current citizenships of the individual members? Is it the combined longest-standing citizenships of the individual members? Is it where they based their operations for most of their existence (Ireland)? Is it what they identify with and call themselves? I feel like I've seen an argument for every single one of these before... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Like what I say or not, but the reason for its exclusion is because of bad faith on the part of a select few, masqueraded as editorial policy, they have given no valid reason as to why Irish, should be excluded.Sheodred (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil and comment on content, not editors. Canterbury Tail talk 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What concrete proof do you have of bad faith? Just because we aren't Irish and don't agree with your every thought, it means we're purposely editing with an agenda or bad motives? If we were Irish, would it make the opposing stance more valid? I actually agree with the "Irish band" wording, but I am accommodating enough to accept whatever consensus is determined. Also, what part of the opposing viewpoint is so hard to understand? 2 of the band members weren't born in Ireland, their families aren't Irish, and they moved to Ireland at different points in their lives. That's the reason. Maybe you don't think it's valid, but that's the viewpoint. By all means: continue to be thick-headed. We've already explained in depth why the consensus to this point has been what it is. We've even provided you with a VERY, VERY long archived debate on this topic from years ago which completely demonstrates why this is such a contentious topic. If you don't want to read through it, that's your fault. I guess that block did nothing to deter you from acting uncivil? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 17:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The opposing editors reason for not saying this is because 2 of the 4 members are British-born - only Bono and Larry Mullen Jr were born in Ireland ...and so how are they an Irish band?

Again, the country you are born in is not necessarily the country of which you are a citizen and what your nationality is. The Edge and Clayton are Irish citizens they have lived here since they were very young children, Bono and Mullen are also Irish citizens, and the band was formed in Ireland by a group of Irish citizens. Hence, this debate should not even be happening.Sheodred (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The birthplace of band members is not the reason I and other editors are oppposing it. please read it and don't present strawman arguments even if unintentional. (and if I had time this morning I'd be requesting admin advice on your insistance of accusing us of bad faith/motives.) --Merbabu (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead,request it, I will not lose any sleep, I love it how you attempt to discredit my points as being a "strawman argument",you should also check some of the 'uncivil" comments that was left on my talk page, hypocritical really, but then this is the kind of people I am dealing with here.Sheodred (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This condescending attitude is exactly what I was talking about on your talk page when I said you were being uncivil. Granted, you aren't the only one to lose your cool, but you are just making this situation worse.
Do you have a reference that says that The Edge and Clayton are Irish citizens? The opposing party from the archived debate in 2006 said that The Edge was a British citizen and had never applied for Irish citizenship (although this may have changed since then). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue isn't about citizenship of individual band members. It's about how the band self-identifies, and how reliable sources refer to them. DC TC 23:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see this discussion is in danger of becoming a personal dispute, and after some thought on the matter, have changed my position. Nationality is a loaded concept, as evidenced by other edit wars on WP (including some of the lamest), and get into concepts of "ownership" that a neutral encyclopedia must avoid. It appears to me that synthesis is involved with both proving "Irishness" and disproving it. This discussion has no forseeable end, IMO. As a side note, am disappointed to see Sheodred has been making changes to the Pogues article along these same lines [1]. The Irish rock article used there is no more than a "list of Irish rock bands" and doesn't solve much (Celtic rock is a legit genre). Finally, it is somewhat ironic to be going tooth-and-nail over the nationality of a band that prides itself on global philanthropy and togetherness. Move me to oppose change, "band from Dublin, Ireland" works for me. The Interior(Talk) 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how it's synthesis to refer to them as "Irish" if both the band and reliable sources call them it? DC TC 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel that it would be synthesis to ascribe nationality to the bands' members, unless we have a definitive source where both Mr. Evans and Clayton state what they feel is their true nationality. Of course I feel weird doing the opposite, that is saying they aren't Irish, so I feel we must meet in the middle, and avoid the demonym. My main position after this discussion is that nationality, on WP, should not be emphasized. The article makes it clear that Ireland is core to the bands identity, and that's what I find to be important, not whether they are "Irish-Irish", "British-Irish" or "Ugandan". My Irish roots want them to be "Irish", but my inner Wikipedian tells me that the adjective is not entirely accurate, at least from a Verifiability point of view. The Interior(Talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
An interesting case study would be Arcade Fire, which in press, is often called a "Canadian band", but our article avoids the term because the American birthplace of two key members. The Canadian in me wants to claim them as my own, and the Butler brothers may well be honorary Canadians, but "Canadian band" would not be accurate there. The Interior(Talk) 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
But we're not ascribing it to the individual members, but to the band itself. Sources generally refer to them as Irish. Rolling Stone refers to them as the four Irishmen and the Rock HOF uses the term Irish quartet to describe them. Time magazine calls them Irish [2] [3]. Ditto for Spin magazine. Hell, even the British Broadcasting Co uses the term Irish. Plus, there was the book that Y2k provided. DC TC 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And in regards to the Arcade Fire example, see AC/DC where the two main members are Scotish, but we still call the band Australian. DC TC 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I can see where you're coming from, and hopefully this kind of debate can continue. I'm heading out for the night, but will contribute more tomorrow or on the weekend. Thanks DC for some strong discussion points. The Interior(Talk) 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is Irish band. The superficially "thoughtful" vacillation exhibited here is akin to promoting an intolerable systemic bias witnessed in other places. I refer you to this statement from the previous discussion

This whole argument is a non-issue. The lads always call themselves "Irish" and nothing else. Anglo-Irish is completely wrong. It means someone holding a peerage or title from the Kingdom of Ireland or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So unless Bono is the Duke of Killiney, and the rest of the lads are earls, barons or baronets, they ain't Anglo-Irish. Edge hasn't taken out Irish citizens because he is proud of his Welsh heritage. As to birth, that is irrelevant. Cliff Richard was born in India, but he isn't referred to as Indian, but British. Éamon de Valera was born in New York but he is universally referred to as Irish, not American. If a child moves from one country to another and grows up and lives their adult lives in another, they are usually referred to by their second identity, not the place that they were born if they did not live there for more than a short period. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone, admin or otherwise, ever poses the question "Steve, why do you make great contributions but in the same breath hate editing Wikipedia so much?", I'll point to the revival of this discussion here in 2010 as a reason. It is like listening to fingernails on a blackboard, or waterboarding, over and over, having to put up with this numbingly didactic, pedantic, supercilious crap over these issues. There is no reason for further debate. The same type of syrupy "need to be clear"—yet jarringly anti-Irish beneath the surface—idiocy used to prohibit naming the country's article by its official name is being practiced in this discussion. You may be a tattooed talking platypus for all I care, if you write parroting the imperious tone of the ones on the wrong side of that discussion, you lose me immediately. I am not interested in debating this, the band is Irish. Full fucking stop. Use some common sense. Sswonk (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting your edit summary: "What a bunch of pricks". Seriously, do you think name calling is going to influence people to your point of view? --Merbabu (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Merbabu. If people put as much effort into their arguments as they did their incivility and personal attacks, this debate would have been over long ago. Unfortunately, since that is not the case, that has not happened. I'd be more than willing to listen if people cdecided to get off their high-horse and discuss it like rational human beings. I have the feeling that I will be waiting for that moment for a while to come yet. This whole discussion has been filled with nothing but vile accusations from the start. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. Anybody fancy applying for mediation, or whatever the next step may be when all people seem to be able to do is throw accusations and insults around like hot potatos? Melicans (talk, contributions) 08:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Do either of you wish to respond to my comments above? DC TC 15:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I will when I have time later tonight. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm for Irish rock band which is what reliable source say. Bjmullan (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. and oppose all others.
Further, i second the whatever with my own whatever. This is ridiculous. delirious & lost~hugs~
I also second the whatever on this issue. I did some research so I'm here to present some facts, and not opinions. Here's links from that state U2 is an Irish band. (I'd like to stay neutral on this but there isn't really any way to find a source that explicitly states they are NOT an Irish band.)
  • "Being an Irish band you're concsious of that."[4] - quote from Bono
  • "An Irish band plays its song 'One' in the city where it was written nearly 20 years earlier."[5] -New York Times article
  • "It has been 20 years since the Irish band made a splash at Live Aid..."[6] news article
  • U2 listed as winners of "Best Irish Band" award[7]
Dream out loud (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The underlying problem: the 'definition' of Irish

I've decided to respond to the above points in a new section, because I think that what I have to say sums up pretty much everything that has been said thus far. Re-reading the discussions, it seems that the underlying issue regarding this whole debate is how we are applying or defining the term "Irish". Simply put, the difference in opinion appears to be caused by different ways in which people are viewing "Irish", and how it is applied to U2. From what I have read, the following are the different ways in which the word Irish is being considered, or have been discussed (no matter how briefly):

  1. Citizenship/nationality of the individual band members
  2. Irish themes in their music
  3. Self-identification by the band
  4. Where the U2 business is based

I believe that those are the main "definitions" (for lack of a better word) that have been discussed, at least most recently. Please correct me if there are any that I been missed.

Of these four, #2 and #4 should probably be discounted right off the bat. There are Irish themes in U2's music to be sure, but they also incorporated American themes throughout much of the 1980s in particular (most notably on The Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, but also present to some extent in The Unforgettable Fire), and they have continued that exploration away from their roots throughout the years. In regards to the fourth point, since 95% of U2's business occurs outside of Ireland that should probably also be discounted.

This leaves #1 and #3 which, looking through several years of history of the debate, seem to be the big two that have caused all the strife. The former leads to the omission of Irish from the article because only 50% of the band members were born in the Republic of Ireland and hold Irish citizenship; the viewpoint says that, because of this, saying that they are "an Irish band" is inaccurate - bands cannot have passports, so deciding a band's nationality has to come from looking at the individual members. The latter looks past the issue of citizenship and believes that self-identification is the more important and relevant concept to be considered; the viewpoint says that if the band describes themselves as Irish, then they are Irish and that is that. Both viewpoints have merit and neither should be discounted out of hand; the underlying problem is coming to a consensus about which one is the better descriptor for the article. Currently #1 is the viewpoint that is implemented in the article; past discussion has led to the individual citizenship/nationality of each member being the strongest argument for the current wording, including the inline note. However consensus can change, which is the very reason why we are having this discussion again.

If we ultimately decide on keeping viewpoint #1 there is no doubt that Irish should be omitted from the article; it would be wholly inaccurate to say as such when half of the members are not Irish, despite the fact that they live there. The individual members also, after all, have residences in the United States and France; but that doesn't make them American or French. If we decide on switching to viewpoint #3, then the opposite is true and Irish should be reinserted. The band is frequently described as Irish by the media, and Bono in particular has often called U2 an Irish band, most notably at Live Aid. My question to those who believe that we should change to #3 is simple: A band is just an entity. It cannot describe any component about itself and it cannot hold a citizenship or nationality. That is something that the members comprising the band have to do. So my question is thus: has every member of U2 described it as an Irish band? That, I believe, is the only sticking point between #3 and it's implementation into the article. If any band member, but particularly the two who remain British citizens (Adam Clayton and The Edge for those just joining this conversation), have not done so, then how can we definitively describe the band as such?

Let's try to keep this discussion centered around which of the two concepts should be the one we use to define U2 as Irish. Hopefully we can keep this civil with everybody assuming good faith on the part of the other contributors. Remember that, in terms of following the layout/style of other articles, WP:PRECEDENT does not apply but WP:OTHERCRAP does. This is not a mass nationalist conspiracy being waged by either end, or even if U2 is Irish or not Irish. It is a simple matter of whether we apply the description in terms of the individual member's citizenship/nationality or the group's self-identification as a whole; a simple difference of opinion over which of these two descriptions/definitions is better for this article, and why. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 2.Their style of music (themes etc) does not determine who they are, by your logic Dropkick Murphys shouldn't be American.
Point 4.What kind of rubbish is that, if you are implying that where the majority of their business has taken place counts as well, then every Irish music group/singer could not be described as Irish, please that is just utter nonesense.
Your argument here isn't strong, and you still not have directly addressed the points DC raised in the previous section.Sheodred (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
My argument in the above is not strong because I am not making an argument either way. I'm trying to refocus the discussion on what I believe to be the reason why this debate is ongoing; a simple difference in viewpoints on how we define the band in this article. I did not respond directly to DC's points directly because he asserts that U2 are Irish by self-identification. I agree with that completely (or at least that Bono says as such; I would like to know what Adam and Edge say), but I do not necessarily believe that self-identification is the way to go in this article. There is a bigger picture here than what you have been focusing on. I am trying to focus this discussion onto that bigger picture: namely, do we go by citizenship (in which case they are not Irish), or do we go by self-identification (in which case they are). That is the core, underlying principle that I think is the reason for all of this disagreement, and which I think has been largely ignored, missed, or glossed over up to this point. Why are you so opposed (as indicated by your subsequent additions and removals) to refocusing this debate on the underlying reason of the conflict? Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This boils down to one thing and one thing only what do reliable sources say? Anything else is just WP:OR. Bjmullan (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Melicans perhaps you could also reply to my point? Lets refocus on one of the principles of Wikipedia, namely WP:RS Bjmullan (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Further " analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources" is considered original research so you can't claim the band isn't Irish without clear sources doing so and you can't you define Irishness differently than sources do in context of the band. On another note, the band has been known worldwide for 30+ years (and seemingly deemed Irish the whole time) so if Clayton or the Edge don't feel the band is Irish, wouldn't they have said something about it? DC TC 14:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The argument for the status quo is not about proving the band is not Irish. That would be ridiculous. Rather, the argument is that "from Ireland" is a better way for wikipedia to say it. No-one here is claiming that they are not Irish. Can you claim that the band is not from Dublin/Ireland? So what's the problem? --Merbabu (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Well since the band is Irish, why not state it? Being Irish and being from Dublin aren't mutually exclusive so we can say both. DC TC 14:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The Sydney Opera House is highly unusual and I know most people will agree with me, but I'm not about to say it in wikipedia. Let's just stick to hard, dry facts rather than labels. Further, it's obvious that writing "U2 are Irish" is contentious, whereas no-one is saying they are not from Ireland. That's more than enough reason. --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Well the current wording is contentious too, or we wouldn't be having this debate. And again, it can be easily verified that the band is Irish, so why not include what reliable sources say? DC TC 14:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, is there any policy or guideline that supports your argument? DC TC 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Merbabu,I loved your attempt to use the Sydney Opera House as a comparison for your argument, it was hilarious,however it just looked and sounded very bad.Describing the band as Irish is not contentious,and it highlights a certain person's POV as they just stated said "it's obvious that writing 'U2 are Irish' is contentious", no it is not obvious and it is not contentious, the entire planet refers to them as an Irish band not "a band from Dublin, Ireland".Sheodred (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sheodred, I'm no longer paying attention to you (I am after all a "bigot" to use your words), so you can ridicule and accuse me of bias as much as you like (you are of course perfectly neutral?). You lost any ability to influence me long ago. Your inability to engage civilly and constructively with your fellow wikipedians is your problem not mine. Who's "looking stupid and very bad" now? --Merbabu (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Stop changing the subject, comment on the material not the editor, isnt' that what you always say, and to answer your question "Who's "looking stupid and very bad" now?", I believe that would be you.You are turning this into a childish and immature tit for tat, maybe you inability to deal with criticism is the reason why, anyway address DC's and BJMullans points instead of acting like a child who throws their toys out of a pram in a tantrum.Sheodred (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Copy pasta: You lost any ability to influence me long ago. Your inability to engage civilly and constructively with your fellow wikipedians is your problem not mine. --Merbabu (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does it not state that this band is first and foremost an Irish band? All the member have stated that they are Irish, it is obvious this article has been hijacked by a group of bigoted editors, who do not want ,possibly the most succesful rock band in the world, to be labelled as Irish, due to their political agendas masqueraded as editorial policy.Sheodred (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec) And it appears that the only place where calling the band Irish is contentious is here on Wikipedia; no one has indicated that any reliable sources say it's so in the real world. DC TC 10:01 am, Today (UTC−5)
And to piggyback on Sheodred's point, people may refer to them as being from Dublin, but they also say their Irish. It's no different than "The Beatles were an English rock band founded in Liverpool". DC TC 15:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This is getting repetitive. No convincing argument has been provided as to why the status quo is not perfectly accurate. Those supporting the status quo don't need to repeat their arguments further. There is clearly no consensus for change. People have raised the issue here, did a bit of forum shopping with the RFC. Time to move on. --Merbabu (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(n.b., an ironic header ===Toys having been tossed=== was redacted from this position by the owner of this article; now that "consensus" has been "reached" I can only conlude the irony was lost) Sswonk (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Babu, take a little time to look at the way these several sources refer to U2. Juxtapose that reading with the leads of the several other band articles below the list of newspapers. Calling the seeking of an RFC "forum shopping" reveals just how much your personal feeling and opinion, and personal stake in being listed as a main editor of the band's article, seem to hold sway over your respect for reliable sources, that is, the world outside. It is that and the subject itself which lead me to point out the similarity of attitudes here to some held in the Ireland/Republic of Ireland naming dispute.

Sydney Morning Hearld: Nov 6, 2009 ... Irish rock band U2 perform a free concert in front of the Brandenburg Gate and 189 other articles

Los Angeles Times: Feb 8, 2006 ... Irish rock band U2 won five Grammys on Wednesday night, including album of the year for "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" and 438 other articles

Times of India: Sep 17, 2010 ... Lead singer of Irish rock band U2 Bono arrives at the Elysee Palace in Paris and over 27,000 other articles

The Guardian ( Jul 28, 2009 ... Dublin protest disrupts U2 tour. Irish rock band's plans thrown into chaos by overnight picket and 24 other articles

BBC: Dec 10, 2005 ... Irish rock band U2 is awarded a prestigious accolade by campaign group Amnesty International and 193 other articles

The Independent: Aug 4, 2007 ... Bono, the Edge, and the other members of the Irish rock band U2, regularly jet out to their 30-room villa complex in the south of France and 66 other articles

The New York Times: Dec 2, 2010 ... The musical documentary “U2 3D,” which stitches together three performances by this Irish rock band during a recent tour of South America and 781 other articles

That is but a brief unscientific polling of online news sources. However, the results consistently show that in writing leads of stories about the band, professional English speaking journalists worldwide use the concise and correct descriptive you oppose: Irish rock band. Here now are examples of other lead sentences which can be found in Wikipedia:

Coldplay are an English alternative rock band formed in 1996 by lead vocalist Chris Martin and lead guitarist Jonny Buckland at University College London.

Red Hot Chili Peppers are an American alternative rock band formed in Los Angeles in 1983.

Radiohead are an English alternative rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire, formed in 1985.

The Clash were an English punk rock band that formed in 1976 as part of the original wave of British punk.

AC/DC are an Australian rock band, formed in 1973 by brothers Malcolm and Angus Young.

Talking Heads was an American rock band formed in 1974 in New York City and active until 1991.

Now, as you can see the style of the sentences used in those leads and throughout the lexicon of popular music articles calls for the form: 'Band Name' are/is a 'country of origin' 'music genre' band formed 'founder or location' in 'year' —(with slight variation). Your fellow editors are taken aback by your insistence that this form is improper in the case of U2. That you may find some reason to ignore this and instead divert attention toward some question of civility, I should probably expect. However, those are the facts and I don't believe your attempt at summary closure of debate has validity. Let some more eyes fall on this section, and don't fret about the imagery you have become characterized by. It should, however, make you think just a little. Cheer up, we can get along if you let us, but not if you treat anyone but the ones who want to play the bluelinked policy game with you as "uncivil". Don't let the loincloths and grass skirts of the above sources scare you off. Sswonk (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

When you call editors "pricks", try to patronise them, and insist that they are biased, then it's hardly surprising you don't think civility is important. --Merbabu (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC) or in other words, incivility is very much in the eye of the beholder. Please do not revert my restated header, it was referring to a "moving on" that you requested, albeit with irony. That's irony, not incivility which may be what you have trouble seeing. No cheers. Sswonk (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "Irish band". One step backwards, but it seems a very important step to a lot of people. What about the rest of the (featured) article - the other 99.8%? Us pricks and bigots are accepting your compliments in advance. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As you clearly went against the established consensus your change was reverted. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine. --Merbabu (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As this seems to have turned into an edit war I've protected the article for 24 hours. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I changed the article to the position I was arguing against as it's time to move on. And I meant it. But I was reverted and got a "final warning" for vandalism. Go figure. I'm not going to discuss it here further, and I'm not going to edit on the U2 are "from Ireland / are Irish" point. --Merbabu (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I find the opposition to "Irish band" to be a bit puzzling. 2 of the 4 are from Ireland, all 4 of them formed the band in their youth at an Irish school, they (or at least Bono) certainly self-identify as Irish, and you have a pile of reliable sources that call them this as well. The basis for opposition seems a bit shaky, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Barts1a you have violated the 3RR, it is hard to believe you have not been warned or blocked, the information is reliable and it appears that consensus has been reached,you have not contributed to this discussion at all,anyway lets change the wording and move on please, the information is reliable and verifiable, so for fcuk sake can we please just move on.Sheodred (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
He was. Anyway, I'm sad to see this discussion went downhill last night. I think there's probably consensus to add Irish in, but we should probably let the RFC run a little longer. DC TC 15:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, did not spot that.Consensus has been reached I believe, the sooner the changes are made the faster everyone can move on from this.Sheodred (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
No question that consensus would seem to have been reached. Given my experience over the course of editing rock music articles in a project that was infested with sockmaggots (literally dozens of opposing puppets), I caution that may be moot. I never edited this article that I remember. I tend to leave GA and Featured articles alone, under the idiomatic guideline "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." However I did stumble upon this discussion and made my perspective on it all quite clear. Merbabu should not be chased away, it is great to have a caretaker committed to an important subject. However, I think the commented text which is still included in the lead: "DO NOT SAY THAT THEY ARE AN IRISH BAND. Not every member was born in Ireland. Saying the band is from Ireland gets the same point across and is more accurate. Do not change without consensus on the talk page." is absurd. I truly stand with mouth agape at some of the weird chest thumping statements that arise from the friction around birth location in Great Britain and Ireland. Guess being born in the United States still has some advantages, who knows? The blockquote by FearÉIREANN I pulled from 2006 above says it all. The fact that Edge and Clayton were both born off Ireland is totally irrelevant to calling the band Irish, especially since both moved to County Dublin with their families while they were a meter or less tall. Speaking of its origins and outward stance, the band is thoroughly Irish in spite of the two childhoods out of four. So, to move on might be to say what should be the first sentence, once the protection placed by Courcelles until the 9th expires: U2 are an Irish rock band formed in County Dublin in 1976. Sswonk (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Those arguing to keep the status quo were not basing their argument on two of the members not being born in Ireland. U2 are from Ireland, is still a better wording even if all four were born in Ireland. --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Questioning this at your talk page. Sswonk (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me and not before time. I take it the editors note will be removed/amended accordingly. Bjmullan (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Why do we need the word "county"? This is newly introduced into the discussion. The question was whether to change to: "U2 are an Irish rock band from Dublin." County Dublin and Dublin link to distinct articles, with the latter seeming more appropriate. --Merbabu (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Dublin is fine, the band formed in a Dublin city suburb, so it would be better then saying County Dublin.Sheodred (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, that might have been me trying to be knowledgeable. Obviously I am not. Is Clontarf relative to Dublin on the same level as Mattapan, a part of Boston within the city limits? When I read it was "a coastal suburb on the northside of Dublin", I thought that meant it was a separate town within County Dublin, which is why I wrote "County". Suburb to me means lesser municipality outside a main municipality. Sswonk (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I would include the date of formation, rewording the above as U2 are an Irish rock band formed in Dublin in 1976. Don't let the fact they've been at it for so long escape notice. Sswonk (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
No need to mention 1976 (or possibly even Dublin for that matter) as it's in second paragraph opens with all of this. more to the point, rather than opening up the fronts and cause for disagreement and editing locks, I'd move on and get this page open again - some of us would like to edit more than the first sentence. --Merbabu (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Disagree Merbabu, every single article on Wikipedia on famous music groups states;who the band are,the year of creation and the city/town in the first sentence for the introduction, the other sections just goes into depth.So this would be fine "U2 are an Irish rock band, formed in Dublin in 1976",(and we could add on to that) "and are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed rock bands in modern music.", or something similar just to highlight in the introduction, how successful they actually are.Sswonk no need to add the suburb,if you look at all the well written articles for music groups they just state the city or town, and leave out the country.Sheodred (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. --Merbabu (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Next time you want to add to a discussion don't insert pointless one worded comments like "whatever" to get some kind of silly little message across,its a waste of space and effort,but feel free to do it on your own page.Sheodred (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright then, I think your suggestion is not an improvement. But, I’m tired of dealing with the continued incivility, personal attacks, having my ability as an editor fundamentally questioned, and bad faith that commenced with your opening on this issue.
I don’t agree with the words “are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed rock bands in modern music." It’s puffy rock mag cliché that shouldn’t have a space in wikipedia article. Not an improvement in any way. Yes, pop culture articles on wikipedia are rife with this, but that doesn’t mean it should go here. But, if it means another big battle then above, then I repeat...“whatever”. --Merbabu (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If I recall correctly just such a statement used to be in this article, but it had to be removed during the final FAC did it not? Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The FAC lead was much shorter and info more condensed. From memory, things like Dublin and 1976 and their rise to fame appeared within the first few sentences. The subsequent changes to the lead (largely an expansion) were personally not to my preference. Still, I don't think the new puff/peacock suggestion is an improvement to that - I doubt it would get thru an FA process with that. --Merbabu (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think the easiest, most sensible change would be to say "U2 are an Irish rock band formed in Dublin in 1976."... end of sentence. Next paragraph can omit the year of formation and just say "U2 formed at Mount Temple Comprehensive School when the members were teenagers with limited musical proficiency" without the redundant year of formation. The final sentence can remain in the place it has been. This is the paragraph that describes U2's impact and musical legacy, thus the statement about being "one of the most successful" artists is more relevant here. Although, we may want to alter it to say "U2 are one of the best-selling artists in popular music". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 00:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say joker's suggestion is good – except the last bit about "best selling artist” - IMO it's just more pop culture article fluff we've managed to avoid here so far. --Merbabu (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
to love i rhapsodise: sources can be lazy, grammatically incorrect, or/and just outright wrong. sometimes sources even intentionally publish lies. i would like to comment specifically but i don't have 40 years to read all of this. Calling it original research to use one over the other is outright ridiculous. If your grandfather is from Ireland and you were born in New Zealand then you have Irish ancestry, like Tim Moriarty who appears on the b-side of "Window In The Skies". If the band is from Ireland then the band is Irish. If a tv show is made in USA then the article calls it an American show. Last i checked U2 are from Ireland. This article is about the collective not the individuals. One way just sounds like a third grader wrote it and the other sounds professional. delirious & lost~hugs~ 00:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Seeing that there is now a consensus to add the word Irish, I requested unprotection. DC TC 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I altered your request slightly. You requested that {{U2}} be unprotected, which as far as I know is to begin with. I changed it to the article; I think you copied the template's template (if that makes sense) instead of the article by accident (hence the change). Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice catch. Thanks. DC TC 02:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source: <ref>{{title=U2|last=Shirley|first=Jackie|page=46|year=1993|publisher=[[Longmeadow Press]]|location=[[Stamford, Connecticut]]|isbn=0681418753|}}</ref>

  • page 46 - "Bono said it was 'amazing' to think of people in Dublin picking up Time magazine and seeing an Irish band on the cover. 'For so long we were thought of as a British band and that was insulting. To be covered by the international media finally means we've been accepted as Irish.'"

Maybe this can lay it to rest. Heiro 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I updated the lead to say "...Irish rock band from Dublin." I'd prefer to add the year they were founded after Dublin but there's no consensus to do so at this moment. DC TC 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Its standard protocol in the articles for musicians, to include the year of creation, check the good articles The Beatles, The Eagles, Blur, Oasis etc, and you will find that is so, don't worry about consensus for that, the year belongs there.Sheodred (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2010 (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.

Virgin Prunes associated act

How exactly are Virgin Prunes an associated act of U2? Just because members of the Prunes and U2 were all friends at their young age and gave Bono his name, and that The Edge's brother Dik Evans was a member of U2 for a few days and later joined the Prunes, does not seem to make them an "associated act". They haven't directly collaborated with each other on projects or toured together or anything like that. As far as I'm concerned, they had a small history together a long time ago, but as individual people, not as two bands working together. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They're not even mentioned in the text. Their inclusion is probably based on someone seeing a blank field in the infobox template and thinking "we have to put something in their". I'd remove it. --Merbabu (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
My interpretation has been any bands that were closely related, either by the movement they came out of, any shared band members, etc. Dik Evans was a member of U2 for about 1.5 years, so it's an exaggeration to say a few days. Then he moved onto the Virgin Prunes. According to U2: A Diary, in their early days, both bands often had loose lineups for their live shows (since some members were unable to attend every show) and used each others' members as fill-ins (e.g. if Larry missed a U2 show, a Virgin Prune would fill in). Gavin Friday was also a member of the Virgin Prunes, one who was a close friend and collaborator with U2. I feel those are good reasons to have them as an associated act, although it might be an oversight to have them missing from the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think those early years do qualify the Virgin Prunes as an associated act. That being said, given the vast difference in success achieved by both bands, I think the association is more likely to be of interest to Prunes fans than to U2 fans. My recommendation would be to restore the association. I don't think the association needs to be described in the U2 article as it is described in the Prunes article. Robman94 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

controversial remarks relating to "shoot the Boer" song.

Recently an expression of endorsement for a song inciting violence by U2 lead singer Bono cause some uproar in South Africa: -- (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't a legitimate topic for the Bono article, then it has even less to do with the band article. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, so let's redirect this discussion to Talk:Bono. Funnily enough, it appears that the controversy was fabricated by one of the reporters. Is anyone really surprised by that? Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Not surprised that it is fake. Surprised that someone would be so bold as to publish something like this to such a misrepresentation of events as to skew it into an endorsement of genocide. Melicans found the rebuttal article from another reporter present at the interview & i am adding it here just for reference of those not looking to bounce through talk pages and eventual talk archives. delirious & losthugs 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


I trimmed this a bit as it seemed rather arbitrary. --John (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole section is arbitrary and contrived. I'd rather see a lot of the fluff pulled out and any decent stuff moved merged into the History section of the article. I agree with your edit, but am suggesting that it is only the first step. I think it would be quite easy to merge the "influences" sub-section, but the overall "Musical style" section would take more work.--Merbabu (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


There should be a critisisms section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-we Joplin (talkcontribs) 16:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, so I am curious, why the need for such a section?U21980 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Criticism sections are inherent violations of WP:NPOV, hence why this article and others (such as Bono) no longer have sections for it (or for more positive details such as "Awards" and "Accolades"). Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If there are specific "criticisms" you feel should be in the article, then by all means suggest them here. But as for a criticism/controversy section the others above are correct. --Merbabu (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know what type of criticisms that P-we Joplin is talking about. I figure it may violate NPOV, but it can't hurt for him to discuss what criticisms he would propose for an addition into the page. U21980 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


U2 is an Anglo-Irish band - two of the four members (The Edge and Adam Clayton) are English-born British citizens. This article perpetuates the myth that U2 is an Irish band. (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Look in the archives for the overly long discussion and consensus reached last year, also the numerous citations to members of the band stating they are in fact an Irish band.Heiro 03:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the consensus is often wrong. Prenigmamann (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Prenigmamann

WP:CONSENSUS, its how we handle disputes here. Also we use WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY and no personal opinions. Heiro 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
One was born of Welsh parents not two of English. They grew up in Ireland. The band as a collective is Irish. That is why it says the band is Irish. It doesn't say that each of the members of the band was born with Irish citisenship. The article on the band is an article on the band not on each member of the band; the members of the band each have their own article. You too can make the arguement that with so many number one singles over here that U2 is a Canadian band. I mean, they played in Moncton of all small cities to go to. Only a Canadian band would play a city of 65K people. ;) O and Bono and The Edge have a little thing going on with the Toronto International Film Festival a couple of days ago called From The Sky Down. An encore screening will take place at Ryerson Uni this coming Saturday. Clearly they are Canadian. ;) delirious & lost~hugs~ 01:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Relevant archived discussion here, for anyone who wants to read it. Plenty of citations to sources describing the band as "Irish", including some from members of the band themselves. If you wish to re-argue or change the consensus, be sure to read up on it and bring better sources than the ones already provided. Heiro 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wishing to "re-argue" (that's a new one) or change anything. I'm simply noting that consensus opinion, despite the fact that it is employed here as a decision-making tool, is often incorrect; as the quality of the consensus opinion is largely dependent on the quality and knowledge base of the individuals expressing a view. The fact that consensus is used is the primary reason that wiki articles are not viewed as a credible or reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prenigmamann (talkcontribs) 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could always use the "THE TRUTH © ® ™ ", but how do you decide whose "WP:TRUTH" is the more correct version of the "WP:TRUTH". So instead we use consensus based on citations to reliable secondary and tertiary sources. We are an encyclopedia, not arbiters of "THE TRUTH". Heiro 21:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not an encyclopedia. Far from it. But as pertains to U2, I am not making a case one-way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prenigmamann (talkcontribs) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You of course are entitled to you opinion. Would you mind terribly signing with ~~~~ when you leave a message on a talk page, it signs your posts and adds a timestamp, and it is another of our policies. Heiro 02:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Policies". Sure, no problem. But maybe one day there can be a policy initiated to try to strive for accuracy in these articles. There is so much minutiae involved policies, procedures and policing that the informational content is often overlooked - or overridden. Prenigmamann (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Prenigmamann

All members of U2 are on the record as describing themselves as an Irish band. Ever heard them refer to themselves as an Anglo-Irish band? Or anyone else for that matter? --Merbabu (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
All I'm going to say is read Talk:U2/Archive 7#Irish or from Ireland?. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Already linked to above. By their own admission above, Prenigmamann is not arguing one way or another over this matter, but are merely here to discuss their feelings on the validity of Wikipedia and its policy on consensus in general. As that is not the purpose of this talkpage, this section can probably be archived now. Heiro 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I know this discussion is a little old now, but I feel able to add my input on the matter in points, I work well with points, it's what I do in real life, so -

Arguments for Irish -

  • U2 originated from County Dublin/Dublin Ireland (Republic of). They were formed there.
  • The Edge, along with Adam Clayton, were both born in England, UK. However, they were raised in Ireland.
  • They are famous for being from Ireland, and nowhere else. This is the band as a whole.
  • MOS states no ethnicity in the lead. Well seeing as the ethnicity of The Edge and Clayton are not Irish, how is that going to apply? <: ones Welsh the other is of English ancestry.
  • They self-describe as Irish.
  • Adding English/Welsh/British or whatever to the lead, would only put undue weight on two of the members birth places, ethnic backgrounds and citizenship.
  • Anglo-Irish is just wrong. We would never use such an outdated term now. Even if it did or did not apply.

Arguments for inclusion of British/English/Welsh -

  • Clayton was born in England to English parents.
  • The Edge was born in England to Welsh parents.

And that's it....I think it's pretty clear there just an Irish band and any citizenship or ancestry is wholly irrelevant to who the band is, their style and their notability. --Nutthida (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


It says the band originates from Dublin but when you check the pages of Bono and The Edge it says their Origin is County Dublin. Eh. --Nutthida (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dublin is a city within the same named county .It also has several areas and towns within these can be referenced like Glasnevin on Bono's page. There is no contradiction , but certainly a slight vagueness about it.Murry1975 (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
OK Thanks. There all from the Dublin greater area I suppose. Cities are ridiculously complicated things. There vague. --Nutthida (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes , I am from one area of Dublin BOTH my parents are from different areas , yet we are all from Dublin - just not quite the same one , at least I'm not a Culchie :) .Murry1975 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

References to stage names

I favour that Paul and David's stage names should be referred to in the opening line of the lead, much the same way gangsters and sportspeople like "Air" Jordan have their secondary names acknowledged — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

They're stage names instead of nicknames. Bono is always credited as simply Bono, ditto for The Edge. Hot Stop UTC 07:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Giving their real names in the lead is fine for the articles on the band members (take a look at them, they currently satisfy what you want). However, I don't see why it's necessary for an article on the band. Bono's and The Edge's real names are listed in the U2 article body when discussing a point in the band's history when their de facto names were not their nicknames. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 07:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to change it from the status quo we have had all these years. As U2, they have only ever been credited as Bono and The Edge respectively, and this article should reflect that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME would say the use of Bono and The Edge is correct , the example Snoop Dogg given is the exact same as either of these. Thier birth names are given in the article and on their own article pages, which are pipelinked , I can not think of a reason to change these.Murry1975 (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This article was changed by the above IP and by USER:Sikhvirtue here[[8]] Sikhvirtue was found to be a sock of a disruptive editor , Sikhvirtue is now blocked.Murry1975 (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


Former members The infobox should at least include Dik Evans as a former member of the band--he was in it for over a year. I don't know why he wouldn't be included... —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 14:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a general (and I admit an unpopular) objection with info boxes - they tend to elevate the trivial to the top of the article. This would be a perfect example. That Edge's older brother was a member (and at times less than serious member), is indeed rather trivial in the whole scheme of U2's history. This is the same reasoning behind cited by those who argue against the inclusion of the Dalton Brothers and Automatic Baby in the info box (indeed these points aren't even mentioned in the article, an appropriately not). So, I'm not supporting the inclusion of Dik Evans in the info box as it is excessive promotion of relatively trivia over far more important material for which there will never be space in an info box. Just because an info box as the parameter does not mean the item should be in their. Because one can, doesn't mean one should. --Merbabu (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware Dik Evans never played with the band called U2 , only The Hype , I maybe wrong. The Hypye were a 5 peice they went to a 4 piece then changed their name as memory(OR) recalls. If a cited source could be found for a 5 piece U2 featuring Dik I would support.Murry1975 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You are correct - indeed, the article says as much. --Merbabu (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Koavf could you please stop adding the province, it is not common usage [9], [10], [11], or even here [12]. It gets used in templates? Please understand addresses in Ireland tend not to use province. I have again reverted it in good faith. Yes Merbabu I knew I remembered it from some where.Murry1975 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that listing the province adds no value. Sure, it's official, but Dublin is Dublin and there is no reason/benefit for wikipedia to chose strict usage over common usage - at least in this instance. --Merbabu (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Dalton Brothers and Automatic Baby are not even mentioned in the U2 article anywhere at all and that is appropriate????? Merbabu, perhaps you should go ride a wild horse or two and come back a bit more humbled. What next? Do you remove all mention of Brian Eno? Or maybe you want to go so far as to get rid of all mention of Adam because it is inappropriate because noone cares about the bass player? By your own logic it is inappropriate to mention Passengers at all. And yet Original Soundtracks 1 and Miss Sarajevo are woven into the U2 article collective and Passengers is in the infobox as an associated act. Therefore your actions are in conflict with your own stated position. Either they all are in or you push for the removal of the field from the template because they are each and all associated acts. Since when is it appropriate to intentionally orphan articles that are appropriate to exist?
Isn't Paul McGuiness the 5th member of U2 and i thought Dik was out when they were still The Hype. If there were an article on The Hype then Dik would have a place in the infobox. The infobox for oasis doesn't include every member of The Rain. delirious & lost~hugs~ 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed the point of your comment - why should we remove mention of eno, Adam and passengers? I don't get it. Adam is a founding member (he's 25% of the band!), eno is a hugely influential figure in their career, and passengers is an important release and key to their 90s work.
as for your wild horses and humble comments, I detect possible inadvertant incivility - no doubt unintentional on your behalf though. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Members

Changed Edge to be 2nd to Bono, then Clayton then Mullen. This is the way the band is ordered in every recording and DVD. GG The Fly (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category-British post punk bands

Does anyone else feel its ok to include this band in this cat Category:British post-punk music groups, we have a POV warrior edit warring to keep it out [13]. Would it be better to move it up one cat? Heiro 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

They are not a British band, though the individual members are of various nationalities. The inclusion of that category in this article does not make much sense to me. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me, moved up one cat to Category:Post-punk music groups, if anyone ever creates and Irish specific cat we can move it there. Heiro 20:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Not POV , as above where you yourself state they are not British but Irish ,to include them then in a British group catergory would go against consensus , why include a band that are not British in a British band catergory ? Not POV just logic .Murry1975 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Ridiculous idea to put U2 under the category "British post-Punk bands" - another case of the Brits trying to claim things that don't belong to them (yes, Samuel L. Jackson was 100% right). "If I were lying drunk in Heathrow Airport I'd be Irish, if I win an Oscar I'm British" - Brenda Fricker. (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

creation date

U2 was said to be formed in 1978, not 1976, according to the official U2 website - (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

1978 is incorrect. There are ample sources showing that it was 1976 – there’s a whole section in this article about their pre-1980’s history. Their official biography used many times in this article says 1976. Also, try Timeline of U2. --Merbabu (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC) is not very reliable - the charting details they list on the pages for the band's albums are often incorrect. As Merbabu said, it's widely established when the band formed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 04:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Associated acts

They did a song with Green Day and Green Day's page has U2 as an associated act. I think it should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts reads in part: " This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career."
"The following uses of this field should be avoided:"
"One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song"
I've removed it from here and the Green Day article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Nay, BOOOO. NFL opening night on a 4 song set is not a single song though one of the songs performed was released as a single. Just because Bono doesn't have a part in the first song doesn't make it less important. The Edge organises the Rhapsody / Music Rising benefit for the musicians of New Orleans and the Green Day / U2 micro-concert before the football game was the public culmination of it, with international broadcast and was augmented by a single, two videos, and a Grammy nomination. I have however noticed that you act more like a censor than anything else so i am not surprised one bit that you gladly remove that too (or are glad it was done). I find it a total joke that the only band you are willing to list as an associated act is the band themselves by another name, and that other name doesn't even have it's own article. But the band by yet another name does have an article and you removed it from the list of associated acts not-sure-how-long-ago. Just to be clear, this is not a statement in favour of removing Passengers but rather questioning the removing of every single other associated act you have deemed too insignificant to mention. I liken it to my being in the mood to say U2 in the 20th century is too insignificant to mention. If you don't like it it goes; if anyone doesn't like that.... The substance for my argument is however primarily found in your liking mention of Music Rising in the intro of the article. If Music Rising is so relevant to be in the intro all this time then why is U2's participation in it's benefit concert with Green Day not worthy of noting the associating of the two bands? delirious & lost~hugs~ 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's also not "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" which is the only reason for inclusion. You didn't bother to read the template's documentation did you? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think Music Rising is really that important to the band's career to be mentioned in the lead. It's certainly not a justification to promote Green Day in the associated acts above all others but Passengers. At a pinch, perhaps the Virgin Prunes could go in there, but I could probably be swayed either way on that one. Also, surely whether an act is included in the infobox shoudl be based not on the significance of the act, but on the significance act to U2. Extending that logic, U2 has links to the likes of Paul McCartney, Springsteen, REM, Van Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Kylie Minogue, Bob Dylan, Coldplay, Sting, Brian Adams, and many others. It doesn’t matter that these links can be tenuous. Rather these acts are very significant (ok, HUGE), so let’s include them? --Merbabu (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree on the removal. U2 has been around for over 35 years. Green Day for about 25. The collaboration they did in 2006 defines neither of them; it was too short-lived and not significant enough. I'm not saying "pretend it doesn't exist at all", but it should not be included in Associated Acts. The top of the template says it all: "This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career." Their collaboration is a nice footnote in each of their careers, but not quite worthy of prominent Infobox recognition. --MikeUMA (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to U2 playing "Wake Me Up When September Ends" with Green Day. (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Sean

I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that the two bands worked together on the song. The argument is, as you deleted above, the template does not allow for association based on a "one-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song". It's also not about how long the two bands have been around, it's just not a significant contribution. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


Is there a pressing reason why the Union Flag appears every time this article is edited? RashersTierney (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The intent would no doubt be to highlight that this article uses British English as opposed to American English. It’s quite common for the spelling to be “corrected”. I think the banner to highlight this is fine. Whether it needs to Union Jack is another issue. It never occurred to me that it was a problem – on the other hand, I can’t argue that it is needed to, excuse the pun, flag/highlight the language issue.
The flag seems to be embedded in the banner, but it seems to be a banner specific to this article. Hmm. How about making the banner red or some other warning colour? It would appear a bit plain if the flag was simply removed. --Merbabu (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
So basically it servers no purpose except to brighten the place up a bit? RashersTierney (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
No, i (quite clearly) did not say that. the colour is intended to attract attention like a number of other Wikipedia banners. Preview it without the banner and u will see it's a lot less noticeable. If you really feel it cannot be lived with, then feel free to replace it with another way that uses colour. --Merbabu (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could use a red shading. Or maybe the Irish flag. --Merbabu (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this article is where I noticed the issue I raised it here. Also the template has been locked and raising the question there is evidently a waste of time. RashersTierney (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
hmmm. So it's not a U2 specific template after all. Well, if it can be changed - fine IMO. --Merbabu (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You may in fact be right. This template, Template talk:Editnotices/Page/U2, appears to have been manufactured specifically for this article and imposed from on high without any discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Use Irish English - I'd say considering they're an Irish band, Hiberno English should be used. But it'll need to be changed manually. Seems the original intention of the template being created was to stop US-English being used, though not sure why the user thought that British-English was appropriate for a non-British band. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Rashers I think only certain admin can alter that template. Its odd having a notice above saying use Hiberno-English <nowki> </nowki> then another when editing the article saying use British-English, as per EngVar it should be Hiberno-English. Murry1975 (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Odd, I don't see any discussion to change the form of English to be used here despite "...this should not be changed without broad consensus." RashersTierney (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You're offended by a flag, clearly. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm offended by banal nationalism being imposed on Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I meant it in the context of it being small-fry compared to what I had to witness when I checked out the edit history of User:Factocop. End of the day it's just a flag meant to catch the eye, but I understand it may seem odd at the top with all the constant arguments regarding the nationality of U2, which are mostly born out of ignorance tbh (Unlike Factocop, who is wilfully hateful, bigoted and racist in their editing). --Τασουλα (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about disruptive sockpuppets. Its about the appropriate and inappropriate use of flag icons on the project. RashersTierney (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just responding to your comment on nationalism in general. Sorry if I caused offence. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

None taken. RashersTierney (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

←Once you folks have reached a consensus, I can make it happen. After reading the thread I'm not sure where everyone stands – would you like the editnotice removed? The wording changed? Just the flag removed? Shubinator (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Restore Comment - The fix with least drama is probably to restore the old English variant with the simple Template:Use Irish English, and it avoids the whole 'flags and emblems' issue, at least wrt this article. RashersTierney (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It's very simple - it's a banner to catch the eye. So replace the Union Jack (and maybe don't put any other flag as flags always upset someone somewhere) but use a bright colour to catch the eye. A red/yellow border or red/yellow infill? Or dancing girls/guys, but that's probably too hard. Go with infil/border colour --Merbabu (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If consensus is to use 'British English', I could go with that. RashersTierney (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
What the...? Your initial question was about the presence of the flag. There seems to be consensus to do something about it - even if we don't know how. Until your last comment, the issue was the flag, not the language used in the article. That's a separate discussion. Let's stick to the issue at hand. If you want to change the english variation used, then at least be clear - and create a new section or sub-section. --Merbabu (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Engvar issue was first raised here by another editor, as is clear from text above. Personally I have no preference on which is used, so long as it doesn't carry national flags. RashersTierney (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
A "!" warning template could be used with the appropriate text. I guess my ENGVAR raising wasn't "cool" with you guys because I'm not Irish...--Τασουλα (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As for me, I'm neither Irish or English. Although my ancestry is made up, in part, from both, but that's generations and generations ago. I support non American English. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


This discussion seems to have run out of steam. Just a heads up that I intend making a request for comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland if 'the silence continues to roar'. RashersTierney (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

run out of steam or people aren't as keen as you? I note that none of the regular contributors have found it that pressing to contribute to the discussion. You've suggested no alternative to the flag's eye-catching function nor have you provided any alternative to the language used. So while I understand your issue with the flag, it's better than nothing so until there is feasible replacement I don't support it's removal. I've already offered suggestions but it's not up to me to implement. Having said that, why not some sort of stop sign - if you need more suggestions. As I said, a flag is not perfect but you've provided no alternative so let's stick with that. My suggestion is to provide a practical and possible solution to your problem, or move on. --Merbabu (talk)
"Go with infil/border colour" is acceptable to me, as I said above. "A "!" warning template" is also fine. The template is already very noticeable without any image in my opinion, but if consensus is that one is necessary, then lets go with one without state-specific overtones. Also, if we can achieve agreement here without RfC, so much the better. RashersTierney (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is this being discussed? WP:TIES states, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Can anybody seriously suggest that they don't have strong ties to Ireland and so should be using Hiberno-English? --02:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


I've changed the editnotice so it doesn't have a flag and refers to Hiberno-English. Let me know if you'd like an image, for example File:Ambox content.png. Shubinator (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If others think the 'Ambox' adds something, then fine by me. RashersTierney (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes image or colour is required as we had - just in case I didn't say it enough times above. --Merbabu (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. If you'd like another image, let me know which one, and I can swap it in. Shubinator (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)