Talk:Bono/Archive 2

message: Could someone please correct Bono's forthcoming honour? It should be KBE, not KCBE...
HFJ 18:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It shouldn't be after his name. Bono has got numerous awards and honours, none of which are placed after his name. Why do some British people believe that their particular honours merit being placed immediately after the guy's name? Th world is bigger than this sort of parochialism. 89.100.195.42 18:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The formal "post-nominals" of the British honours system are recognised by most governments (see below).  There is even an "order of post-nominals" which is recognised globally in diplomatic circles and, yes, includes certain awards from other states. Research before you make unsubstantiated claims. 86.17.247.135 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: the key word there is "can". And "how it works" is not universal. and please sign your posts. regards Merbabu 03:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Key word there is "can" only if you are making it up as you go along.  And it has nothing to do with "parochialism".  There are strict rules that govern the British honours system which are recognised by most governments - including the Irish Republic.  "KBE" is a formal state award and a proper, diplomatically- and internationally-recognised "post-nominal" and so (formally at least) should appear after one's name/title.  I don't believe awards such as a Grammy are considered post-nominals and formal state awards...... (Interestingly, and as a related side  note, if one has a knighthood one is banned from using nicknames with the title: for instance it is "Jimmy Goldsmith" or "Sir James Goldsmith" but categorically not "Sir Jimmy Goldsmith".) 86.17.247.135 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Re list, surprised to see that this has been ignored for a week given it is a straightforward correction to an erroneous statement.  Done. -- Delsource (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The original statement is partly true.  The public announcement was indeed made in December 2006, two weeks before the general announcement of the New Years Day Honours, but I understand the date of effect of the award was still 1 January 2007.  JackofOz 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Understood, but the dispute was not about the year named, but really the name of the list.  There is no "annual" honours list, Bono was named in the New Years list.  It would of course be a bit verbose to say "In 2006 he was named in the 2007....". Thanks. -- Delsource (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Your point about the use of "Sir" has already been pointed out and accepted for some time. And your claim that because he is an honorary recipient he has the post nominals KBE after his name instead of the prefix "Sir" is incorrect.  Any award of this type - honorary or not - carries the post nominals, whether "Sir" can be used or not.  It's just that those who use "Sir" often leave out the post nominals incorrectly. For instance, if Bono was British he would formally be called "Sir Paul Hewson, KBE". -- Delsource (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And I am amazed at how many times people post statements that repeat things already stated/agreed/conceded a long time ago - including in the same thread and indeed in the post immediately preceeding the new addition.  Thanks for sorting that one out for us all, Macphisto....... Jeez; flog an already beaten-to-a-mushy-pulp dead horse, anyone? -- 86.17.211.191 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorary KBE 

message: This section of the article really needs to be expanded.  We've got a tag on the section and have it as a #1 priority on the to do list.  It would be great if we could all contribute a little bit.  I was thinking, as a start, if we could spend a few sentences per each 'album era' of U2 dealing with Bono.  Then add in significant events such as his f*** the revolution speech, maybe other singers he collobrated with, things he says & does at tours.  Maybe as an introduction we can discuss how Bono has directed the band in different ways such as stages, lyrics, type of music they record, etc.  Any other ideas?  Let's get started!  Don't feel a need to discuss before you post (but you are free to do so, of course).  Just make sure its referenced, and then throw it in there in some organized fashion.  We can clean it up as we get more content.  Chupper 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bono and U2 - Please help! 

message: Anybody mind if I remove this? I don't find it aesthetic nor do I think it adds anything to the article. See also WP:FLAG and the discussion on Talk:U2. --Guinnog 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the "People like flags. People really, really like cute little flag icons." on the policy page! :)  But, unfortunately, I have to agree with you.  Take it down as it's not in accordance with policy and it does nothing for aesthetics. Chupper 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hasten to add that WP:FLAG is not (yet) policy; but I agree it makes no sense at all to have flags popping up everywhere. It adds precisely nothing to the article and opens up a new area unnecessarily for unproductive disputes. --Guinnog 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: The equipment section that I started quite some time ago is desperately in need of editing. I can certainly tidy that up to everyone's satisfaction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanAV (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 January, 2007 (UTC)
:If you could update that section and get it cleaned up, that would be awesome.  Thanks ZanAV! Chupper 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bono 

message: I think the setup of Noel Gallagher's page is a good example of how we should discuss Bono's musical career. While we leave the U2 page for specifics, his page should certainly include significant events (Red Rocks, Live Aid, Fuck The Revolution, Dream It All Up Again, the concerts in Sarajevo and Santiago on the POPMART Tour, etc). The page is def lacking in that area—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanAV (talk • contribs) 
:I'm not so sure. All of those things you mention are band events. While of course, there will inevitebly will be some overlap, there is no need to essentially repeat the U2 article. Hmm, ok, Bono's role in Live AId is notable as an individual act, as is the Fuck the Revolution. I guess all i am saying is try to pick and seperate the notable "bono" events and the "band" events. There will of course be some overlap. We don't need to discuss in detail the tracks and development of the Joshua Tree album for example, but Bono's trip to Nicaragua and its influence on the Joshua Tree should be mentioned, for example. Merbabu 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bono 

message: Are we sure that the article is best served by the  "Personal life' paragraph being so high up?  Looking at many other articles I think it might make more sense lower down the article. After the U2 and humanitarian sections.  It's valid information - but it's less central.  Given that he didn't get married before U2 was well established - it doesn't even follow any chronology being so high up on the page.  Thoughts?   Davidpatrick 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea I kind of agree.  It seems Biographies which are chronological for entertainers are listed first.  I've seen a few articles with "Early life" first and "Personal life" near the end.  I'd say do that. Change "Biography" to "Early life" and convert their current subsections regular sections.  Then move "Personal life" to the end, inbetween Humanitarian work & Praise & criticism.  The only thing then is to figure out where to throw Stage name. Chupper 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of the "Personal life" paragraph

message: Just thought I'd add another link for the criticism I saw of U2 moving their intellectual property to Holland to avoid paying taxes in Ireland.
The article is entitled 'Gimme Tax Shelter' from the New York Times link - http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1FFC395B0C778CDDAB0894DF404482
Unfortunately the abstract doesn't have much information but the article itself criticised the hypocracy of asking governments to give foreign aid while at the same time they rich were avoiding paying those taxes by moving some operations to Holland ZeroRPM 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey ZeroRPM.  I'm not sure if you mean you just wanted to link here or if you wanted to add a link to the article....?  If you wanted to put the link in external links of the article, I'm not sure that would be a good idea per WP:EL.  If you wanted to add it in as another reference for that sentence in criticism, I guess you could, but that sentence is already referenced two times. Chupper 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Many would actually suggest that not disclosing charitable donations is a good thing. I know i don't (not that I'm comparing my ability to donate with Bono's). If he did "disclose" he'd be crucified and then we'd really have something to put in. I don't see why anyone is obliged to say what they donate. Even so, a newspaper makes a criticism - does that mean it's notable in this encyclopedia? Merbabu 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Merbabu.  Look at my own personal policy on this subject here.  Is it really representative enough of our world to put it in an encyclopedia? Chupper 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey Chalyres!  Thanks for taking the time to read my little personal policy.  I wrote it to minimize the time I have to spend arguing points I argue over and over and over.  Sometimes I feel like it was a waste to even put that together.  Anyway though, what I consider notable enough to be mentioned, or as I said above "representative enough of our world to put in an encyclopedia" is basically this, taken from my unwarranted criticism policy - Criticism sections should only include feelings of people if they were big enough to make an impact on the topic at hand or were a major reason for the topic's becoming noticed.  I basically mean if a criticism point was notable enough to influence the subject, here Bono, in some way (either his reputation, actions, etc.) OR if the criticism brought on more attention the subject (like a scandal), it should be mentioned.  This philosophy pretty much deals with any topic on Wikipedia positive or negative.  However, the main reason I created this criticism essay was in response to people who throw in their own original research and use weasel words like there is no tomorrow (or in other words, they use Wikipedia to voice their opinions).
===How to proceed===
I'm aware, and appreciate that that is not you, Chalyres, so let me go into some more detail about my stance.  First let me say I'm usually incorrect :).  Second, let me say that I really don't know much about this topic.  For these reasons, please don't give me any type of authoritative position - I don't deserve it.  If you find say - 2, 3, or 4 sources covering a specific issue criticising Bono, I say add & reference it (and maybe include up to two or three inline cites for the added sentence, so people like me don't attack it right away).  I also agree about renaming the section.  But how about just "criticism" and split up the paragraphs - one dealing with humanitarian, the other dealing with whatever else.  I still say keep it brief, and well referenced, though.
===A word of caution===
Now I hope my next comment won't offend anyone here, I really don't mean to do that.  But, you'll notice the bulk of the conversation of this page here is talking about how to introduce Bono and how to deal with criticism stuff.  I always appreciate ANY contributions made and I think it really helps Wikipedia progress, however a lot of people (not just on this article) seem to always want to add in criticism instead of contributing stuff to the core of the article.  Sometimes I just wish we'd all be discussing what information to put into Bono's musical career section or something like that.  You'll notice a lot of Wikipedia article's content is like 50% in the criticism section - and these will be big starts like Madonna, Bono, etc.  That to me is embarrassing to Wikipedia.  It reflects that Wikipedia, to some, is a soapbox and not an encyclopedia.
Often times I find myself writing content for articles I don't have very much interest in (i.e. Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  I only do it to get rid of NPOV content, use references, add in the information that everyone knows is important but is too lazy to put in, and keep Wikipedia somewhat reputable.
Again, I don't mean to attack you Chalyres, you're actually a cool headed guy making a reputable argument.  I guess you just got me started on a rant :).  So I say go for it, keep it brief.  Sorry for such a long response. Chupper 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With people like Chalyres around, I no longer worry so much about the criticism section getting out of control. :)  He also brought up a good point that criticism sections on Wikipedia are probably the only place you can find a unified source on the subject.  I really won't object to his or anyone else's changes or additions to the criticism sections as long as they are referenced and it doesn't grow too long. Even if you are worried, as Wikipedia says "Be BOLD!"  To everyone else out there - feel free to add whatever you like to criticism.  At worst what would happen is someone would remove it. I don't mean to scare people away from editing.  Happy editing - Chupper 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made the changes.  Feel free to discuss those changes here. Chupper 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Now I hope my next comment won't offend anyone here, I really don't mean to do that.  But, you'll notice the bulk of the conversation of this page here is talking about how to introduce Bono and how to deal with criticism stuff.  I always appreciate ANY contributions made and I think it really helps Wikipedia progress, however a lot of people (not just on this article) seem to always want to add in criticism instead of contributing stuff to the core of the article.  Sometimes I just wish we'd all be discussing what information to put into Bono's musical career section or something like that.  You'll notice a lot of Wikipedia article's content is like 50% in the criticism section - and these will be big starts like Madonna, Bono, etc.  That to me is embarrassing to Wikipedia.  It reflects that Wikipedia, to some, is a soapbox and not an encyclopedia.
Often times I find myself writing content for articles I don't have very much interest in (i.e. Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  I only do it to get rid of NPOV content, use references, add in the information that everyone knows is important but is too lazy to put in, and keep Wikipedia somewhat reputable.
Again, I don't mean to attack you Chalyres, you're actually a cool headed guy making a reputable argument.  I guess you just got me started on a rant :).  So I say go for it, keep it brief.  Sorry for such a long response. Chupper 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With people like Chalyres around, I no longer worry so much about the criticism section getting out of control. :)  He also brought up a good point that criticism sections on Wikipedia are probably the only place you can find a unified source on the subject.  I really won't object to his or anyone else's changes or additions to the criticism sections as long as they are referenced and it doesn't grow too long. Even if you are worried, as Wikipedia says "Be BOLD!"  To everyone else out there - feel free to add whatever you like to criticism.  At worst what would happen is someone would remove it. I don't mean to scare people away from editing.  Happy editing - Chupper 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A word of caution

message: Cleaned up addition to criticism section (recent petition to extend copyright to 95 years) by SlaineMacRoth.  good addition, pretty fair, added self-contained mitigation to avoid "defenders counter that" by including that it was signed by 4500 other artists.  I think that should be enough to balance it.  --Chalyres 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism edit 

message: As of March 23rd this section is filled with weasel words.  Can the editors of this text get this cleaned up?  Avoid words like "Critics say" and "critics point out".  Refer to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
In addition, this sentence is redundant - "Bono is known for campaigning against third-world debt and has written a forward to The End of Poverty, a book by economist Jeffrey Sachs that calls for increased foreign aid by industrialized countries to developing countries. This aid money...".  We have a whole section dedicated to this cause.
I'll be chopping stuff out again.  If you're not happy about something being removed, then don't use weasel words when you add it back in.  Chupper 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the changes.  Feel free to discuss those changes here. Chupper 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I heard that Bono was an avid Celtic FC fan and once tried to purchase the club, along with the rest of U2 and Rod Stewart, once upon a time.  Is this true? If it is does anyone think that there should be a section on this or at least should be mentioned somewhere?TammiMagee 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to make sure you're not confusing it with Larry Mullen being a fan of the Republic of Ireland national football team...  If you are right, it might be notable enough to mentioned if he tried to purchase it.  It could be thrown up in "Other endeavours", but we'd probably want a source or two before its added.  Chupper 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Awesome addition.  Thanks for adding references! Chupper 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Bono a Celtic fan? 

message: I know the lead sentence is often a touchy subject, for good reasons, so I'm posting this change here.  I'm changing the words "lead singer" to "frontman" and adding a link.  Using "frontman" indicates he is the lead singer and implies the most famous member out of the group as well as the one who "[communicates] with the audience between songs".
I'll be making the changes.  If you disagree, feel free to discuss here. Chupper 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although i take Chupper's point about being the leader and most famous, I agree that 'frontman' is a bit tabloidy and unencyclopedic, and thus not a good change. But, keep up your (otherwise) good work Chupper. is there another way to get that leader concept into the article? Does it have to be in the first sentence? It can be expanded on later in the article or even lead (if it is not already).Merbabu 15:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points guys.  I agree.  Yea, maybe we could illustrate this somewhere else.  Either way, I've reverted back to "lead singer" on the lead sentence. Chupper 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing "lead singer" to "frontman" in lead sentence 

message: This section popped up recently. I propose we delete it and merge relevant information into other parts of the article.  I'm basing this proposal off of WP:TRIV.  Thoughts? Chupper 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full agreement. The word 'trivia' comes from the word 'trivial' (obviously) and this means non-notable (even if interesting) and thus has no place in an encyclopedia. There are two ways to remove trivia: (1) simply remove non-notable info and (2) put actually notable info into the main article. Trivia sections should be actively removed. In articles like this that have no recent history of trivia sections they should be dealt with quickly as they can grow like weeds. Merbabu 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia? 

message: Tina Vanbeveren's permission is not sufficient, alone, to allow us to use the image on Wikipedia.  We need her to release all rights of the image and to release it into the public domain or keep the copyright in her name and allow the image to be used for any purpose.
What needs to be done.
#Author needs to be contacted.
#She needs to:
##Release the image into the public domain or 
##Keep the copyright and allow the image to be used for any purpose.
#After such information is released, we need to switch the tag to  or  dependent upon which she picks.
Chupper 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've e-mailed the author and I'm waiting for a response. Chupper 13:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author is willing to allow Wikipedia to use this image, but because this image is being used in other projects they cannot allow anyone to use it for any purpose (release all rights). Therefore this image cannot be used on Wikipedia and will be deleted. Chupper 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author has contacted me again allowing the work to be used for any purpose.  I've changed the licensing information on the image page to reflect this. I'll be switching the image back to the main page here. Chupper 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, thanks! --Kristbg 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Bono honolulu.jpg]]