Talk:U2/Archive 2

message: This section is listed almost verbatim from http://www.u2talk.com/bio.php. I think we need to rewrite it. Any takers? Wikipedia brown 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/formation section 

message: ...Should the speaker use the singular voice ("U2 has released many successful albums...") or the plural voice ("U2 are predominantly Christian...")?
I am not sure what Wiki's stance on this issue is.
:"U2" is singular; there is only one band. EVula 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YEs, only one band but it's convention to refer to groups as if they were plural. Ie, No-one says "The Beatles is coming", or "The Police was...". Definetly plural.--Merbabu 02:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, collective nouns are singular in American english and plural in British english. I would assume that in Ireland, they use British english, not American english, thus I would say make it plural. Bsd987 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plural it is, then. --William 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that it's plural, shouldn't the first line should read "U2 are an Irish rock band"? --Luminousbit 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - it should be "U2 are", but I can't be bothered in an edit war over something minor like that. If someone else wants to change it "are", go ahead. cheers --Merbabu 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically, the correct way sentence would read "U2 is an Irish rock band." U2 is the name of the band and thus, a collective noun. The example of the Beatles is not the best example because the name has been taken to be plural. Any reference to a single member of the band often reads like this "John Lennon was a Beatle" or "John Lennon was a member of The Beatles". Bands like Green Day, and N'Sync both use the singular. However, Backstreet Boys uses the plural because the name is plural and can be used to refer to the group members indivitually (i.e. a "backstreet boy") Nevertheless, it's sort of an unnessecary distinction and, thus, shouldn't be worryed about as much. --omtay38 19:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Referring to U2 

message: I went through the article line by line. I agree with much of 170.61.20.229 comments (why don’t you sign in???) and have left them in the article but the new heading regime is inappropriate. The first reason should be enough – it was previously ordered along albums and tours; factual and actual dates and events. The new edits base the article on less tangible “periods” (ie, “height of popularity). These might be FINE for a rock magazine, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia as wiki.  Furthermore, many of the actual headings were highly POV, provided little material info and in places were arguably even incorrect. Ie, “Height of Popularity”.
The new headings grouped the periods covering War and UF. Yet, the band themselves when grouping the periods puts Boy, October, War in the first period, the UF til 1989 in the next period.  It could even be argued that they are POV, so best to stick to indisputable facts rather than debateable “periods”.
I reinstated many links to the main album and tour articles that were recently removed.  Having the “main article” links at the top of a section hopefully discourages editors from filling out this main U2 article with all the little details of an album of tour – rather, place them in the tour or album articles. This main article can only be a summary of albums, etc. --Merbabu 03:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on Fri 24 June and Sat 25 June

message: I asked this question before but I think it went into the archives, so chances are no one is going to see it. Here it is again. I noticed that the Joshua Tree section of this article doesn't talk about any of the themes and the mood of JT, whereas the War and Boy sections go into some detail. Is it better to add info to the JT section or should we start merging some of the information from the War and Boy sections into the album's own articles? Since this article is already at 50kb, the latter may be more appropriate. It would be great to hear your thoughts, especially Merbabu and Kristbg, both of you have been doing really great work with this article. Wikipedia brown 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put something in the JT section. If we feel the article is getting too big, we can always pull out some stuff from the ATYCLB and HTDAAB sections - people keep adding the latest news to those sections. --Kristbg 20:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Really, a lot of these subheadings are unnecessary or redundant.  We don't need a new heading when talking about an album in that albums section, for for every paragraph that talks about a new topic.  Whenever I remove them, they keeping being added again.  WesleyDodds 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wesley, i understand what you are saying, and at least for some sections you are correct. I initially put in the sub-headings to try and sort out the information - some of the album sections are quite long and do benefit from further sub-division. And in these longer sections, the information was actually spread about with no logical flow - i fixed this order of info at the same time i put the headings in. So when i put the sub-headings into these sections i also put them into the shorter sections, simply for consistency. BUT, i can reconsider that strategy. I suppose, just cos one section is long and is in need of sub-headings, doesn't mean a shorter section must also have them. cheers --Merbabu 01:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so i had a look at the headings you had removed - specifically those in the Boy/October section and the Unforgettable Fire section. My criteria for keeping a sub-heading was the amount of info between headings.I think there is ALMOST a point for removing them from U Fire, but I felt there was just enough to justify it - borderline. As for Boy/OCtober, i think there is a stronger case for leaving the headning seperating them - they were two very different albums, different periods (even though both within short time) and they both have enough info. BUT, i did consolidate headings in the Joshua Tree - Rattle & Hum Sections. I felt there just wasn't enough info there to justify a seperate heading for the Joshua Tree tour, and also the Lovetown tour. As i said earlier, the only reason i put the sub-headings was to try and order the article more (at the same time i remember shift paragraphs and sentences around in a logical "album" then "tour" order - that wasn't there beofre in many cases.  So let's just keep our eyes on the flow of the article. --Merbabu 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the Boy/October section: the first heading already says the section is going to cover both albums, so it's assumed both will be discussed in a logical progression.  There's no need for the separate headings.  This is all part of a larger concern that the page is too long; much of the detail can probably be shifted to other pages. instead of being compartmentalized into sizable subsections.  Thus the main U2 page can and should be trimmed down for increased readability.  WesleyDodds 06:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree with you about the length of the overall article - More bits should be moved over to the individual topic articles. I have done a bit of that already. As long as the information is not deleted, but shifted then it is good. If that means that the Boy/October section is shorter and therefore can lose subheadings, that is great. But until it gets shorten, i reckon it is better with the subheadings.--Merbabu 07:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done! It was a bit of a rough "chop" so please check. --Merbabu 07:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Now we should probably work on trimming down everything from Achtung Baby afterwards.  WesleyDodds 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subheadings 

message: I'm fine with the way it is now, but somebody-seemingly the same person using dynamic IPs-keeps changing it back. Other than adding hidden text, which I already did, can anyone think of anything else we can do? --69.145.123.171 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre, Part III

message: Regarding the much-needed influence section described above, I've been attempting to do a bit of reading and research on U2's influences, which have obviously drastically changed with each new style of music the band has produced.  Here are just a few quotes I found skimming through Bill Flanagan's excellent 1995 book U2 At the End of the World, one of U2's few biographers who clearly knows the band well:
*Bono, on Achtung Baby and early recording struggles: "It's a cliché, but U2's biggest influences have always been each other.  We've always played with each other.  We've always played against each other musically.  When we came to Berlin we were suddenly, musically, on different levels and that affected each thing.  The musical differences affected the personal differences."
*Maybe not a U2 member quote, but Flanagan on Rattle and Hum: "Let's learn about roots and how the old songwriters did it."  Bono's thoughts on technology and the remmodification of rock music are described in detail on pages 24–30 of Flanagan's book.
*Edge's guitar playing, particularly in the Boy period, greatly resembles that of Public Image Ltd..  Flanagan comments: "U2 did come from P.I.L.  And from the Clash, Jam, Patti Smith, Skids, Lou Reed, Bowie, and fifty other places.  What sets them apart from their early rivals and influences is where they ended up."
*Bono on Bowie: "Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane were big influences on U2 and should be acknowledged."
I think the correct way to approach a section on influences is with direct, citable quotes from the band—U2 has such a long history that nearly any great artist may have had some influence on them, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a chronological list of their biggest influences. —McMillin24 contribstalk 06:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned before, the NewOrderStory features commentary by Bono where he refers to "the godly voice of Ian Curtis" and Quincy Jones mentions how Bono told him that Joy Division/New Order was the band's biggest influence.  There's the oft-repeated anecdote about how after Ian Curtis' suicide Bono went up to Tony Wilson and told him "Ian was number one and I was always number two".  Also the song "A Day Without Me" from Boy is about the death of Ian Curtis.  WesleyDodds 22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: Was just browsing here and was struck by the large chunk of the band's early history from 1976 to 1984 being missing. Wisekwai 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the band's early history? 

message: There seems to be a little controversy around the use of the word "occassional" in the first sentences. ALthough i reinstated after its removal a few days ago, i agree it is awkward, BUT strongly feel it is a necessary evil if we are to continute referring to Larry's "occassional" keyboard and backing vocals, and Bono's "occassional" harmonica. If the issue is the "clumbsiness" and "irrelevant" use of the word in the opening sentences, then wouldn't it make more sense to remove reference to the key-board playing, harmonica, etc???? That is what is clumsy and irrelevant. However, if they are to be included, then the article gives a poorly proportioned comment on the roles of the members; let's face facts: Bono is U2's singer, and Larry plays drums - their other performing duties are ancillary and insignificant. At best, Bono "plays" guitar 2 or 3 times a concert and this is the "extra" activity that has the strongest case for inclusion in the opening sentences. The others are indeed extremely rare: the hamonica was played in two songs, and the only time it's been played in the last 10 years was in the early legs only of the Vertigo tour (after a 10 year hiatus), Larry plays single-finger keyboard in 1-song on the current tour only, and his backing vocals are extremely rare (Numb). If we are to include Larry's keyboard and Bono's harmonica, then why not include tambourine (he "played" it occasionally during "Al Because of You") or Edge's bass playing and Adam's lead guitar during "40"???. --Merbabu 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I have heard Larry sing backup ONCE, on the song "Numb". That's it. Shadow1 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't a big deal, but if occasionally is added then a disclaimer should naturally follow later in the article (btw: Adam spoke a few words at the end of one song...) --William 00:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Larry also sings backup on "Miracle Drug", for what it's worth. --Pleeker 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry's "occassional" keyboard and backing vocals, and Bono's "occassional" harmonica 

message: If I go over to Britain in the morning and start working with a British company the company doesn't become Irish just because I'm with them. Granada Television is not Irish, even though Gerry Robinson from Donegal has been the principal cause of its rapid success. Similarly British Airways has not become Irish because Willie Walsh has taken over at the top. At any rate, a quick Google of "U2" and "We are an Irish band" reveals this remark by one Paul Hewson in the introduction to 'Bad': "We are an Irish band, we come from Dublin City, Ireland. As with all cities it has its good and it has its bad...this is a song called Bad..." 
That's that settled, then.  El Gringo 13:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'We are an Irish band. We come from Dublin City...'

message: While I'm here, I don't know why there's controversy about this. Surely some U2 fan (as in fanatic) could confirm the following. I heard Bono  on TV years ago explaining the origin of the band's name. He said it means "the music that you too want to listen to'. Pompous nonsense, in my view. But that is, verbatim, what the man said. El Gringo 13:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of name

message: Have U2 ever actually played in Africa?  I've been trying to think of all the bands that have toured all six continents, so far Bob Marley is the only one (and probably the first).
: The last two shows of the Popmart Tour were in Johannesburg, so yes, they have. --McMillin24 contribstalk 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know off hand, but what about Queen? They controversially played South Africa (Sun City). They did a massive show in Rio. They've toured Europe often, of course. Dunno about Down Under and North America but I'd guess so... --kingboyk 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Curious 

message: Because Wikipedia is contributed to worldwide by users who use a wide variety of types of English and dating, Wikipedia adopted a simple rule for content. 
* Where an article is about a topic from a country that uses one particular type of English, and one system of dating, that country's system should be used in that article. 
In the case of U2, as the band is Irish, that means that the article has to use
* Hiberno-English (which in effect is a branch of International English, and
* International Dating. 
International English is largely based on British English so it means that in effect this article should not use American English spelling and grammar. 
International Dating takes the form dd/mm/yyyy, unlike American Dating, which uses mm/dd/yyyy, or ISO which uses yyyy/mm/dd. As it is an Irish topic this article has to use dates in the form 2 April 1970 (with no comma) not April 2, 1970 which is called American dating. 
Finally, footnotes follow standard grammatical rules. That means that at the end of the sentence they come after, not before, a full stop or comma. So the reference should be written as  text.footnote text not textfootnote text.  FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  language usage  

message: THis section is a mess. Way too long, rambles with insignificant, speculative and unreferenced statements. Personally, i think the value of its inclusion at all in an encyclopedia is dubious given it's speculative nature.  I recommend:
: Shortening it - pull out irrelevant info, and re-write any remaining info more succintly.
: Remove narrative tone
: Remove anything that can't be directly referenced
: Chop long quotes.
: Put some order into the sequence - suggest chronological
--Merbabu 23:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next album section

message: : The recent edits are generally excellent and long overdue. Kudos to Painbearer. I have some comments though...
:* There are a few edits i don't quite agree with - i will put them back with reasoning for consideration, or better still, re-write them differently to hopefully solve the problem you identified. Eg, i might put a 1-sentence mention of the Apple/iPod deal - the contribs show that it was a battle to keep this section down to even its recent bloated size!! I certainly won't reinstate the seperate section. But these are a minority - most edits i agree with.
:* There is indeed too much detail in the article - but much of what you have removed (well done) does have a place in other articles (tours, albums, etc). We should work to make sure of the chopped info, the "good bits" find their way into these specific articles. 
:* I will reinstate the split between War and Unforgettable Fire. These are considered 2 very distinct phases of U2. If anything, War belongs with Boy and October and UF with Joshua Tree and R & H.
:* The formation date of the band is 1976. Any reason why you mentioned 1978? Was that the year of the name "U2" coming into existance? Either way, 1976 is the generally accepted date as it was when the four existing members first played together even if there was 1 or 2 extras that didn't last long.
:Excellent work. --Merbabu 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards: Painbearer 23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second Merbabu's opinion, great work on cleaning it up and making it more concise. I'm sorry to see the album covers go, but I guess they have to. I really wish we could get (fan) pictures from the tours. I have some close-up ones from the Elevation tour that I took from the floor, but they're not too good quality, and besides it would be better to get other tour pictures in. In any case, I'll try to add some citations in that are missing (which reminds me, good job on cleaning up among others, the citations that I added in -- I was too lazy to format them correctly, especially the ones from u2.com!). Wikipedia brown 03:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere packed away in boxes i have some pics of The Fly and MacPhisto that I took from near the B-stage in Sydney 1993. One day i will find them and scan them in. Only two came out 1/2 decent though. (yes, my face is in the famous video - during Angel, Stay, Running, and WOWY :-)  ) --Merbabu 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent (long overdue) "chopping"

message: The category :Category:Christian musical groups has been placed on this page. I removed it but the editor who placed it there insists U2 is a "Christian Band". This is incorrect:
* There is big difference between a band that has members identifying that they believe certain beliefs associated with Christianity, and a religious band who's purpose (the band's purpose, not the individuals') is to promote Christianity and worship, etc. U2 are certainly the former. That category lists the latter.
* U2 themselves have often said they are not a "Christian Band"
* I opened about a dozen of the other musical groups in that category and every article is about a group that PREDOMINANLTY writes about Christianity and associated beliefs, praise, etc, or one that exists PREDOMINANTLY to promote Christianity - U2 is neither of these.
* What about Van Morrison, Midnight Oil, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan - they had/have Christian beliefs which like U2 was on occasion put in their music? No, it wouldn't make sense would it - neither does U2.
* As for the editor's reasoning:
:* "yes, it does." mean that 3 members with Christian beliefs means U2 are a "Christian Band" "have you ever heard 'I still haven't found what I'm looking for'? What about 'I Will Follow'? They are a Christain band"
::These are just references, usually vague, to their beliefs. OFten they are how they FEEL about their beliefs which is often confusion (see Wake Up Dead Man), certainly not promoting it, or involved in any over Christian "Praise". THe references are arguably few in number and are not the PREDOMINANT theme throughout their music.
:*In reply to " But the band itself is not a Christian entity there to promote Christianity": "I beg to differ. Their songs are often Christain in nature, and the band members themselves are Christain". 
::They do not promote Christianity as the rest of that category does. Song references, often of discouraged faith, do make a Christian Band to spread Christianity. To suggest otherwise, shows a shallow knowledge and understanding of the band's music which numbers 100s of songs.
What do others think? --Merbabu 04:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Christian Rock article makes it very clear. U2 does not belong to that category. And, while we're at it, I don't think U2 is a Celtic Fusion band either. --Kristbg 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i noticed that Celtic Fusion thing too. "very strange indeed" --Merbabu 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If it means anything, Bono said in his book with Michka Assayas that all four are Believers now, which would make them a "Christian musical group", if only because the group is Christian but not necessarily all of the music. Just an opinion. Jvd897 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian group, or group of Christians? There is a difference. :-) --Merbabu 15:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was trying to say is that I think there's a difference between "Christian musical group" and the aforementioned Christian Rock. (As I, too, believe the latter isn't the correct classification, as discussed above.) Cheers. --Jvd897 19:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Painbearer 11:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can we take that as disagreement with the category - or perhaps a suggested new song title? --Merbabu 11:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Painbearer 07:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U2 a "Christian Band"?

message: STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH:
*Bono: The Beliefnet Interview by Anthony DeCurtis—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.73 (talk • contribs) 
:...and? --Merbabu 07:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bono talks RELIGION