![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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.
Pillar needs disambig. Randomblue ( talk) 12:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Also, programming redirects to "computer programming" which I suppose isn't correct. Randomblue ( talk) 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed both. Feel free to make such changes yourself by using the "edit this page" link at the top of the page. But thanks for pointing it out. Wikipedia brown ( talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7215226.stm anyone want to whinge if I stick this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 ( talk) 05:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
U2 has stated their position through their manager. If U2 wish the distance themselves from the statement then I would have no trouble having that in the article also. If he wasn't U2's manager then I am quite sure the media would have ignored him entirely. The comments where made under the guise of U2 I think they should stay. I can't see the need for anymore than one or two lines on this unless a further campaign is mounted (Just like Metallica). If U2 wants to make statements which attract controversy then they should be recorded, not whitewashed by the U2 PR department/fanclub. The full text of the speech is on the U2 website http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=2196 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 ( talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is Dik Evans listed in "Other personnel" at the bottom of the page ??-- he was in the band for like a few weeks and shouldn't share the same space with Paul McGuinness, Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois and Steve Lillywhite that have been with the band for years and years. I'm just confused why he's there. . . GG The Fly ( talk) 05:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody else want to weigh in? Thanks for your opinions! GG The Fly ( talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The newest sentence added to the end of "Reapplying for the..." section says that the newest album is due tentatively in October 2008, however the link provided (107) has no info or statement that says October... Also- Dream Theater released a Special edition of Systematic Chaos with a dvd on which they speak about how U2 has heavily influenced their style lately with songs like i walk beside you, prophets of war and forsaken. Also, as a dream theater fan, i know they've covered Bad a couple times live as well.... Worth noting, on both accounts? Jgrizzy89 ( talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In passing I was a little surprised to notice there wasn't a reference mentioning U2's guest performances on "The Simpsons" Season 9 Episode 22 Titled "Trash of the Titans". I mention it from a cross-reference perspective and suggest an insertion. -- Behälter ( talk) 04:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to include that Bono also plays the harmonica on several songs, but someone keeps editing it out every time I put it in. In order for people to become knowledgeable about each band members' role, I feel it is important for people to know what each band member plays. Just for general knowledge, Bono has played harmonica on Running to Stand Still, Desire, Angel of Harlem, among others. He actually probably plays the harmonica on more songs than he does with his guitar. So, I think others would agree that adding that Bono plays the harmonica is something that shouldn't be overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.241.92 ( talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
IP 198.7.241.92, you have been warned about consistently adding this information to the article, including a 3RR warning on your talk page which you have just violated. Please stop edit warring; the consensus is against you. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just happened to stumble across the above discussion when I was searching for information on U2 performing with Maria McKee. I have to say that the above debate is just another example of the Wikipedia editors abusing their authority and acting like a Star Chamber to squash a perfectly logical and valid argument set forth to include Bono playing harmonica in the article on U2. I've used Wikipedia for years and have even authored a couple of articles and I think the larger issue here is that it seems every new article created these days is flagged numerous times, edited, or just plain ole removed by editors who take exception for one reason or another. This also happens a great deal when popular or high profile articles are edited or amended, If Wikipedia is supposed to be truly collaborative, you have to loosen the reigns and give people some freedom to write an article or contribute to one without interference. The above is a perfect example. It seems to me that the addition was relevant, fit the context of where it was inserted in the article, and was grammatically correct. I think those are the types of things that the editors should be looking for. But it seems that all too often, editors exercise their authority because they (in their perceived infinite wisdom) have their own idea of what Wikipedia should be, what it should include and how it should be presented. I always thought Wikipedia was supposed to be something of a coop. But it seems the mysterious "great and powerful Oz-like" editors will find any excuse to disqualify input. What this has done is create a "Why bother?" attitude amongst many of us when considering contributing to Wikipedia. So many of the Wikipedia "guidelines" have just become so arbitrary -- from formatting specifcations; to decisions on what is or is not considered notable, trivia, or opinion; to whether or not an uploaded photo has been properly licensed; and the list goes on and on. Authoring on Wikipedia is becoming more and more of an exclusive club, ironically, the exact opposite of what the initial intent was. Yes, I'll continue to use it as an information source in some cases but the editors have made contributing just too darn unweildy and unfriendly a process. And now, I await deletion of this post, as I'm sure I've violated some guideline or rule by posting in a closed argument, adding to the wrong section, not signing my post, formatting improperly or just expressing my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.248.66 ( talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, it appears as if the IP is unwilling to listen to the reasons provided. If any of the editors on here would like to, I invite you to contribute to the discussion which appears to be currently held on my talk page. Hopefully you can explain the situation better than I can. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree harmonica should not be listed in this article. [Added to show additional support for the established concensus.] Carl.bunderson ( talk) 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be necessary to write on the rock music, the punk and alternative not sufficient hypotenuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.181.18 ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We've been getting a lot of anonymous vandalism lately, from a variety of IP addresses. I think semi-protection would be a good idea, but I figured I'd get some other opinions before requesting protection. – Dream out loud ( talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Referring to places by place, country (eg, Paris, France; London, England etc) is American English. It is rarely used in British English or Hiberno-English. Why, as this article is described as being written in British English, are Americanisms like that constantly added in?
(BTW why do people write articles on music topics that are filled with music journalism jargon? This is an encyclopaedia, not NME, Rolling Stone or Hot Press!)
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Using American English on wikipedia makes much more sense. British English would be just another European language were it not for the power of the United States, just as Spanish would be without the numerical strength of South America. 86.42.109.173 ( talk) 09:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The first phrase of the article sounded really off to me U2 (IPA: /ˌjuːˈtuː/) are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. , shouldn't it be U2 (IPA: /ˌjuːˈtuː/) is a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. ?
What convention are you referring to? I was just browsing through wikipedia, and I stumbled upon this article and I couldn't even get past the first sentence without taking a second breath --honestly, I have never seen U2 referred to in the plural form (except, of course, in this article). The name U2 is referring to one band and, as such, should be singular. ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see sources:
Feel free to add these to article. Wikipedia brown ( talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
An anon editor 76.184.84.65 ( their contribs) has changed the 2 templates - ie, combined them into a super template. I think both are already too big. I've reverted the changes to the U2 template, and would like to reinstate the U2 singles template. Please respond to this issue here. thanks -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on the u2 discography page for a while now and i'm wondering who directed all these music videoes. -- U2 is alternative rock ( talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't anything said about their christianity in this artical?And with all the christian lyrics in some songs wouldn't that make them a christian rock band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.151.200 ( talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that more should be said about the band members' Christian background and beliefs, both past and present, and how that has influenced their music. However, to call them a "Christian rock band" is fraught with problems because of all the connotations that term implies. U2 are not a "Christian" band in the sense that they have not sought to make their Christian faith front and center in their music. They do not "preach" through their music, nor do they try to actively convert others to their faith. They have not made public proclamations regarding their faith, though they have not tried to hide it either. Most of all, the band members themselves have sought to avoid being labeled as a "Christian rock band."
There is also the issue that since the 1990s various members of the group have lived lifestyles and acted in ways that might seem to some to be incompatible with a Christian way of life (one small example being Bono's penchant for using the "f-word" with abandon). Add to that the fact that one of the band members (Adam) publicly denies being a Christian believer, and there are numerous reasons that U2 should not be labeled a "Christian rock band."
Nevertheless, the fact that Bono, The Edge, and Larry have all been deeply influenced by Christian teachings and the Bible, and were involved in a Christian Bible study group in the early 1980s, plus Bono's numerous statements on Jesus and the Bible over the years, all merit mention in an article about the band. Many of their songs only make sense in light of their Christian beliefs. Also, Bono's well-known political and social activism is fueled by his exposure to and involvement in Christian faith, and this is worthy of mention. Moreover, the fact that it's rare for openly Christian people to be involved in rock and roll music and culture is all the more reason for mention to be made of these facts in the main article. Spiritquest ( talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading the influences part and it says that Arcade fire is a band that have influenced U2. This is not referenced like the other bands mentioned. Can this be verified. Although I'm sure its not impossible that they are an influence on the band it seems to me that Arcade fire are a much younger band than U2 and don't to fit in with the other influences mentioned. Kavanar2 ( talk) 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no official evidence that the title of the twelfth album is called 'No Line on the Horizon' other than fan speculation from a known song title, and a domain registered by Universal. It is speculated that NLOTH might be the lead single, but even that's just speculation, and there is NO EVIDENCE that it will be the album title, other than an article in a British paper that didn't have any sources named, and seemed to pull its "facts" right out of a U2 forum I frequent. Can we agree to keep it labeled as U2's Twelfth Studio Album instead of NLOTH? Digitize ( talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to re-add Experimental music to the infobox list of Genres, but it was reverted (even after a source was supplied) with a note that the U2 Wikiproject would get fired up, at least I assume that's what the reference was to. I only dispute this because I remember seeing an interview with Bono back in 1993 when U2 was performing in Yankee Stadium, and he mentioned the group's movement into that genre at the time. I can't find that local news reference, but I was able to locate several references to U2 being in the Experimental music genre. This doesn't mean they're an experimental band, just that they have produced music in that genre. Just throwing this out there to see what others think. Dreadstar † 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If I am correct, wasn't Beautiful Day selected as the track of [the year] 2000? I'm pretty sure that this was stated on a previous version of the article. Skimming through the page, I believe this snippet of info has been removed. As I am unwilling to re-add it myself (through fear of being wrong), can someone confirm this and take the necessary action? Thanks. A Prodigy ( t• c• m) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh does the song have it's own article? I never knew that, never mind. I didn't know these things at first. Forget I even brought this up XD. A Prodigy ( t• c• m) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I was reading over the lead and although it does a great job of summarizing U2 succintly, I felt it glossed over a few important items. So I'm proposing some changes and throwing this out there to see what everyone thinks. I added a note about the band's song content and then moved up their accolades to the first paragraph to make the last paragraph about their political impact. I also tried to note what kind of band U2 was early on and how they progressed through the years.
U2 ( /ˌjuːˈtuː/) are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. The band consists of Bono (vocals and guitar), The Edge (guitar, keyboards, and vocals), Adam Clayton (bass guitar) and Larry Mullen, Jr. (drums and percussion). U2 have sold more than 170 million albums worldwide [1] and have won more Grammy Awards than any other band. [2] In 2005, the band were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility. Rolling Stone Magazine listed U2 at #22 in their list of the 100 greatest artists of all time. [3]
The band formed in 1976 when the members were teenagers with limited musical proficiency. U2's first few albums, their sound rooted in post-punk, saw modest success. By the mid-1980s, however, the band had become a top international act, noted for their anthemic sound, Bono's impassioned vocals, and The Edge's chiming, textural guitar playing. Their success as a live act was greater than their success at selling records until their 1987 album The Joshua Tree [4] increased the band's stature "from heroes to superstars," according to Rolling Stone. [5] U2 responded to the dance and alternative rock revolutions, and their own sense of musical stagnation by reinventing themselves with their 1991 album Achtung Baby and the accompanying Zoo TV Tour. Similar experimentation continued for the rest of the 1990s with mixed reception. Since 2000, U2 have pursued a more traditional sound that retains the influence of their musical explorations, while attaining both critical and commercial success.
Much of the band's music features social and political commentary, often combined with religious imagery. Throughout their career, as a band and as individuals, they have campaigned for human rights and social justice causes, including Amnesty International, the ONE Campaign, and Bono's DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade in Africa) campaign.
Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Post-punk is a vague term, but the band have countless times referred to themselves that way, as have critics. I think it's safe to say they encompass the genre, however one would define it. I can understand someone raising an eyebrow over "traditional sound", but I can't think of another way to describe it ("stripped-down"? "back-to-basics?"). Maybe we can say they "returned to their traditional sound". What are your reservations about the lyrical content when I mention "religious imagery?" Finally, the information about specifics albums and tours has been a longtime foundation of the article lead, and I think it should remain that way, since those things are the band's defining, most popular works. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
How is it that if I wanna mention the lyrical content of U2's music in the lead with a reference, it's POV, but in a section called "Musical style," it's perfectly acceptable? I'm not sure some people understand what POV means. Secondly, we mention all of the political things U2 does away from their music in the lead - why can't we mention the political nature of their music itself? Don't you think this is significant? Is this not one of the things that comes to mind when you think of U2, in comparison to other rock bands?? Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But we can at least agree that a good amount of U2's music is politically charged, right? I mean, of course they will make other music that does not involve political, social, or religious issues, but these are the areas that seem to dominant the majority of their music, and I thought that something like that was important to understanding the band's music and motivations. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 13:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be consistent in the way we name the history subsections? Most of them are all named after the band's albums or tours (which really don't seem to say much about what that point in the band's history meant), and then the last one is oddly named after a quote from Bono. Shouldn't we choose either/or, rather than mixing and matching? Alternatively, we could split 2000-2008 into two parts, one for each album/tour, and name it like such to match the previous sections. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 170m figure can’t be correct. Here’s what I posted on another users talk page:
This is a feature article, and to maintain the expected highest quality that entails, we must have such fundamental information correct, especially if it is in the lead. I suggest two options:
We can’t just put in the highest figure when it is mathematically incorrect, even if it is referenced. References can sometimes be wrong. -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
They way I came up with the "26 albums" figure is as follows: 11 studio albums, 1 soundtrack album, 9 live albums, and 5 compilations. Many of their live albums and all of their compilation albums have sale-counts that are in the multi-millions. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why the 170-million figure is that unbelievable. The Independent is a reputable news publication and I doubt they fudged any of their numbers, but if you guys would like to tally up each and every album sales figure on your own, feel free to. I, however, don't think that this is necessary. ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
September 25th marks the 32nd anniversary of U2's first meeting. How about getting this article on the main page on that day? -- 201.37.105.14 ( talk) 03:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I know ChatzSpy or whatever has gotten at me for putting MySpace links, but the official sites don't always have a link to MySpace, as in this case. I know this isn't a directory, but more people come here than DMOZ. I'll put the link here because U2 are too big a deal for me to do it on the article in plain sight.
U2 on
Myspace
Sposato (
talk)
23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Lyrics and themes", the song "Mothers of the Disappeared" is referred to as being about the mothers in Argentina. The song was based on Bono's experiences in El Salvador. In "U2 by U2" Bono also makes references to Chile, where the same thing happened. Argentina is the best known example of mothers publicly mourning their disappeared children, but not the only one. Christer Daatland, Singapore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.246 ( talk) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Rama is debating the use of this image on the basis that "There are Free images of U2. The rational "from this time period" could be applied to anything and would allow using any media as "fair use" if taken seriously. The image is not the only one available of the period and had no particular significance over the others, indication that is used for mere decorative purposes." If free images of U2 existed from this time period, they likely would have been submitted by now. Although I disagree with the reasons for the dispute, I'm not much of an expert on non-free images on Wikipedia. Would a person with more knowledge and experience than me please provide their input? Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The new album title, No Line on the Horizon has been officially confirmed by the band today, with a release date of March 2, 2009. [6] I'd like to add this to the "discography" section and possible to the main body text, but wanted to get some feedback here first to avoid any edit wars. – Dream out loud ( talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
After taking a look at the article The Dalton Brothers (band), I don't really see it as being necessary as having it's own article. There really isn't much more that could be added to it, and once the cruft is removed I don't think it really stands on its own. Would anyone be adverse to a merge with this article, likely within The Joshua Tree subsection? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"Sonically, Achtung Baby incorporated dance, industrial, and alternative rock influences of the time and the band referred to the album as the sound of "four men chopping down the Joshua Tree"."
Does anybody other than music jounrnalists actually use the words 'sonic' or 'sonically' to describe music? I've never heard anyone use it in conversation. If this is a bit of journalese it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.195.104 ( talk) 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone think of an alternative word that's slightly more common parlance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.195.104 ( talk) 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FOR THE LAST SENTENCE IN SECTION 6...The correct word is WAS instead of WERE. A collective noun, according to Webster's II: New Riverside University Dictionary is: "A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit. usage: A collective noun takes a singular verb when the reference is to a group as a whole and a plural verb when the reference is to members of a group as single individuals: The orchestra was playing. The orchestra have all gone home.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.201.114 ( talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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.
Pillar needs disambig. Randomblue ( talk) 12:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Also, programming redirects to "computer programming" which I suppose isn't correct. Randomblue ( talk) 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed both. Feel free to make such changes yourself by using the "edit this page" link at the top of the page. But thanks for pointing it out. Wikipedia brown ( talk) 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7215226.stm anyone want to whinge if I stick this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 ( talk) 05:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
U2 has stated their position through their manager. If U2 wish the distance themselves from the statement then I would have no trouble having that in the article also. If he wasn't U2's manager then I am quite sure the media would have ignored him entirely. The comments where made under the guise of U2 I think they should stay. I can't see the need for anymore than one or two lines on this unless a further campaign is mounted (Just like Metallica). If U2 wants to make statements which attract controversy then they should be recorded, not whitewashed by the U2 PR department/fanclub. The full text of the speech is on the U2 website http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=2196 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 ( talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is Dik Evans listed in "Other personnel" at the bottom of the page ??-- he was in the band for like a few weeks and shouldn't share the same space with Paul McGuinness, Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois and Steve Lillywhite that have been with the band for years and years. I'm just confused why he's there. . . GG The Fly ( talk) 05:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody else want to weigh in? Thanks for your opinions! GG The Fly ( talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The newest sentence added to the end of "Reapplying for the..." section says that the newest album is due tentatively in October 2008, however the link provided (107) has no info or statement that says October... Also- Dream Theater released a Special edition of Systematic Chaos with a dvd on which they speak about how U2 has heavily influenced their style lately with songs like i walk beside you, prophets of war and forsaken. Also, as a dream theater fan, i know they've covered Bad a couple times live as well.... Worth noting, on both accounts? Jgrizzy89 ( talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In passing I was a little surprised to notice there wasn't a reference mentioning U2's guest performances on "The Simpsons" Season 9 Episode 22 Titled "Trash of the Titans". I mention it from a cross-reference perspective and suggest an insertion. -- Behälter ( talk) 04:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to include that Bono also plays the harmonica on several songs, but someone keeps editing it out every time I put it in. In order for people to become knowledgeable about each band members' role, I feel it is important for people to know what each band member plays. Just for general knowledge, Bono has played harmonica on Running to Stand Still, Desire, Angel of Harlem, among others. He actually probably plays the harmonica on more songs than he does with his guitar. So, I think others would agree that adding that Bono plays the harmonica is something that shouldn't be overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.241.92 ( talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
IP 198.7.241.92, you have been warned about consistently adding this information to the article, including a 3RR warning on your talk page which you have just violated. Please stop edit warring; the consensus is against you. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just happened to stumble across the above discussion when I was searching for information on U2 performing with Maria McKee. I have to say that the above debate is just another example of the Wikipedia editors abusing their authority and acting like a Star Chamber to squash a perfectly logical and valid argument set forth to include Bono playing harmonica in the article on U2. I've used Wikipedia for years and have even authored a couple of articles and I think the larger issue here is that it seems every new article created these days is flagged numerous times, edited, or just plain ole removed by editors who take exception for one reason or another. This also happens a great deal when popular or high profile articles are edited or amended, If Wikipedia is supposed to be truly collaborative, you have to loosen the reigns and give people some freedom to write an article or contribute to one without interference. The above is a perfect example. It seems to me that the addition was relevant, fit the context of where it was inserted in the article, and was grammatically correct. I think those are the types of things that the editors should be looking for. But it seems that all too often, editors exercise their authority because they (in their perceived infinite wisdom) have their own idea of what Wikipedia should be, what it should include and how it should be presented. I always thought Wikipedia was supposed to be something of a coop. But it seems the mysterious "great and powerful Oz-like" editors will find any excuse to disqualify input. What this has done is create a "Why bother?" attitude amongst many of us when considering contributing to Wikipedia. So many of the Wikipedia "guidelines" have just become so arbitrary -- from formatting specifcations; to decisions on what is or is not considered notable, trivia, or opinion; to whether or not an uploaded photo has been properly licensed; and the list goes on and on. Authoring on Wikipedia is becoming more and more of an exclusive club, ironically, the exact opposite of what the initial intent was. Yes, I'll continue to use it as an information source in some cases but the editors have made contributing just too darn unweildy and unfriendly a process. And now, I await deletion of this post, as I'm sure I've violated some guideline or rule by posting in a closed argument, adding to the wrong section, not signing my post, formatting improperly or just expressing my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.248.66 ( talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, it appears as if the IP is unwilling to listen to the reasons provided. If any of the editors on here would like to, I invite you to contribute to the discussion which appears to be currently held on my talk page. Hopefully you can explain the situation better than I can. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree harmonica should not be listed in this article. [Added to show additional support for the established concensus.] Carl.bunderson ( talk) 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be necessary to write on the rock music, the punk and alternative not sufficient hypotenuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.181.18 ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We've been getting a lot of anonymous vandalism lately, from a variety of IP addresses. I think semi-protection would be a good idea, but I figured I'd get some other opinions before requesting protection. – Dream out loud ( talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Referring to places by place, country (eg, Paris, France; London, England etc) is American English. It is rarely used in British English or Hiberno-English. Why, as this article is described as being written in British English, are Americanisms like that constantly added in?
(BTW why do people write articles on music topics that are filled with music journalism jargon? This is an encyclopaedia, not NME, Rolling Stone or Hot Press!)
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Using American English on wikipedia makes much more sense. British English would be just another European language were it not for the power of the United States, just as Spanish would be without the numerical strength of South America. 86.42.109.173 ( talk) 09:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The first phrase of the article sounded really off to me U2 (IPA: /ˌjuːˈtuː/) are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. , shouldn't it be U2 (IPA: /ˌjuːˈtuː/) is a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. ?
What convention are you referring to? I was just browsing through wikipedia, and I stumbled upon this article and I couldn't even get past the first sentence without taking a second breath --honestly, I have never seen U2 referred to in the plural form (except, of course, in this article). The name U2 is referring to one band and, as such, should be singular. ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see sources:
Feel free to add these to article. Wikipedia brown ( talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
An anon editor 76.184.84.65 ( their contribs) has changed the 2 templates - ie, combined them into a super template. I think both are already too big. I've reverted the changes to the U2 template, and would like to reinstate the U2 singles template. Please respond to this issue here. thanks -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on the u2 discography page for a while now and i'm wondering who directed all these music videoes. -- U2 is alternative rock ( talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't anything said about their christianity in this artical?And with all the christian lyrics in some songs wouldn't that make them a christian rock band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.151.200 ( talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that more should be said about the band members' Christian background and beliefs, both past and present, and how that has influenced their music. However, to call them a "Christian rock band" is fraught with problems because of all the connotations that term implies. U2 are not a "Christian" band in the sense that they have not sought to make their Christian faith front and center in their music. They do not "preach" through their music, nor do they try to actively convert others to their faith. They have not made public proclamations regarding their faith, though they have not tried to hide it either. Most of all, the band members themselves have sought to avoid being labeled as a "Christian rock band."
There is also the issue that since the 1990s various members of the group have lived lifestyles and acted in ways that might seem to some to be incompatible with a Christian way of life (one small example being Bono's penchant for using the "f-word" with abandon). Add to that the fact that one of the band members (Adam) publicly denies being a Christian believer, and there are numerous reasons that U2 should not be labeled a "Christian rock band."
Nevertheless, the fact that Bono, The Edge, and Larry have all been deeply influenced by Christian teachings and the Bible, and were involved in a Christian Bible study group in the early 1980s, plus Bono's numerous statements on Jesus and the Bible over the years, all merit mention in an article about the band. Many of their songs only make sense in light of their Christian beliefs. Also, Bono's well-known political and social activism is fueled by his exposure to and involvement in Christian faith, and this is worthy of mention. Moreover, the fact that it's rare for openly Christian people to be involved in rock and roll music and culture is all the more reason for mention to be made of these facts in the main article. Spiritquest ( talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading the influences part and it says that Arcade fire is a band that have influenced U2. This is not referenced like the other bands mentioned. Can this be verified. Although I'm sure its not impossible that they are an influence on the band it seems to me that Arcade fire are a much younger band than U2 and don't to fit in with the other influences mentioned. Kavanar2 ( talk) 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no official evidence that the title of the twelfth album is called 'No Line on the Horizon' other than fan speculation from a known song title, and a domain registered by Universal. It is speculated that NLOTH might be the lead single, but even that's just speculation, and there is NO EVIDENCE that it will be the album title, other than an article in a British paper that didn't have any sources named, and seemed to pull its "facts" right out of a U2 forum I frequent. Can we agree to keep it labeled as U2's Twelfth Studio Album instead of NLOTH? Digitize ( talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to re-add Experimental music to the infobox list of Genres, but it was reverted (even after a source was supplied) with a note that the U2 Wikiproject would get fired up, at least I assume that's what the reference was to. I only dispute this because I remember seeing an interview with Bono back in 1993 when U2 was performing in Yankee Stadium, and he mentioned the group's movement into that genre at the time. I can't find that local news reference, but I was able to locate several references to U2 being in the Experimental music genre. This doesn't mean they're an experimental band, just that they have produced music in that genre. Just throwing this out there to see what others think. Dreadstar † 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If I am correct, wasn't Beautiful Day selected as the track of [the year] 2000? I'm pretty sure that this was stated on a previous version of the article. Skimming through the page, I believe this snippet of info has been removed. As I am unwilling to re-add it myself (through fear of being wrong), can someone confirm this and take the necessary action? Thanks. A Prodigy ( t• c• m) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh does the song have it's own article? I never knew that, never mind. I didn't know these things at first. Forget I even brought this up XD. A Prodigy ( t• c• m) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I was reading over the lead and although it does a great job of summarizing U2 succintly, I felt it glossed over a few important items. So I'm proposing some changes and throwing this out there to see what everyone thinks. I added a note about the band's song content and then moved up their accolades to the first paragraph to make the last paragraph about their political impact. I also tried to note what kind of band U2 was early on and how they progressed through the years.
U2 ( /ˌjuːˈtuː/) are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland. The band consists of Bono (vocals and guitar), The Edge (guitar, keyboards, and vocals), Adam Clayton (bass guitar) and Larry Mullen, Jr. (drums and percussion). U2 have sold more than 170 million albums worldwide [1] and have won more Grammy Awards than any other band. [2] In 2005, the band were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility. Rolling Stone Magazine listed U2 at #22 in their list of the 100 greatest artists of all time. [3]
The band formed in 1976 when the members were teenagers with limited musical proficiency. U2's first few albums, their sound rooted in post-punk, saw modest success. By the mid-1980s, however, the band had become a top international act, noted for their anthemic sound, Bono's impassioned vocals, and The Edge's chiming, textural guitar playing. Their success as a live act was greater than their success at selling records until their 1987 album The Joshua Tree [4] increased the band's stature "from heroes to superstars," according to Rolling Stone. [5] U2 responded to the dance and alternative rock revolutions, and their own sense of musical stagnation by reinventing themselves with their 1991 album Achtung Baby and the accompanying Zoo TV Tour. Similar experimentation continued for the rest of the 1990s with mixed reception. Since 2000, U2 have pursued a more traditional sound that retains the influence of their musical explorations, while attaining both critical and commercial success.
Much of the band's music features social and political commentary, often combined with religious imagery. Throughout their career, as a band and as individuals, they have campaigned for human rights and social justice causes, including Amnesty International, the ONE Campaign, and Bono's DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade in Africa) campaign.
Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Post-punk is a vague term, but the band have countless times referred to themselves that way, as have critics. I think it's safe to say they encompass the genre, however one would define it. I can understand someone raising an eyebrow over "traditional sound", but I can't think of another way to describe it ("stripped-down"? "back-to-basics?"). Maybe we can say they "returned to their traditional sound". What are your reservations about the lyrical content when I mention "religious imagery?" Finally, the information about specifics albums and tours has been a longtime foundation of the article lead, and I think it should remain that way, since those things are the band's defining, most popular works. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
How is it that if I wanna mention the lyrical content of U2's music in the lead with a reference, it's POV, but in a section called "Musical style," it's perfectly acceptable? I'm not sure some people understand what POV means. Secondly, we mention all of the political things U2 does away from their music in the lead - why can't we mention the political nature of their music itself? Don't you think this is significant? Is this not one of the things that comes to mind when you think of U2, in comparison to other rock bands?? Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But we can at least agree that a good amount of U2's music is politically charged, right? I mean, of course they will make other music that does not involve political, social, or religious issues, but these are the areas that seem to dominant the majority of their music, and I thought that something like that was important to understanding the band's music and motivations. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 13:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be consistent in the way we name the history subsections? Most of them are all named after the band's albums or tours (which really don't seem to say much about what that point in the band's history meant), and then the last one is oddly named after a quote from Bono. Shouldn't we choose either/or, rather than mixing and matching? Alternatively, we could split 2000-2008 into two parts, one for each album/tour, and name it like such to match the previous sections. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 170m figure can’t be correct. Here’s what I posted on another users talk page:
This is a feature article, and to maintain the expected highest quality that entails, we must have such fundamental information correct, especially if it is in the lead. I suggest two options:
We can’t just put in the highest figure when it is mathematically incorrect, even if it is referenced. References can sometimes be wrong. -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
They way I came up with the "26 albums" figure is as follows: 11 studio albums, 1 soundtrack album, 9 live albums, and 5 compilations. Many of their live albums and all of their compilation albums have sale-counts that are in the multi-millions. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why the 170-million figure is that unbelievable. The Independent is a reputable news publication and I doubt they fudged any of their numbers, but if you guys would like to tally up each and every album sales figure on your own, feel free to. I, however, don't think that this is necessary. ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
September 25th marks the 32nd anniversary of U2's first meeting. How about getting this article on the main page on that day? -- 201.37.105.14 ( talk) 03:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I know ChatzSpy or whatever has gotten at me for putting MySpace links, but the official sites don't always have a link to MySpace, as in this case. I know this isn't a directory, but more people come here than DMOZ. I'll put the link here because U2 are too big a deal for me to do it on the article in plain sight.
U2 on
Myspace
Sposato (
talk)
23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Lyrics and themes", the song "Mothers of the Disappeared" is referred to as being about the mothers in Argentina. The song was based on Bono's experiences in El Salvador. In "U2 by U2" Bono also makes references to Chile, where the same thing happened. Argentina is the best known example of mothers publicly mourning their disappeared children, but not the only one. Christer Daatland, Singapore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.246 ( talk) 02:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Rama is debating the use of this image on the basis that "There are Free images of U2. The rational "from this time period" could be applied to anything and would allow using any media as "fair use" if taken seriously. The image is not the only one available of the period and had no particular significance over the others, indication that is used for mere decorative purposes." If free images of U2 existed from this time period, they likely would have been submitted by now. Although I disagree with the reasons for the dispute, I'm not much of an expert on non-free images on Wikipedia. Would a person with more knowledge and experience than me please provide their input? Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The new album title, No Line on the Horizon has been officially confirmed by the band today, with a release date of March 2, 2009. [6] I'd like to add this to the "discography" section and possible to the main body text, but wanted to get some feedback here first to avoid any edit wars. – Dream out loud ( talk) 21:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
After taking a look at the article The Dalton Brothers (band), I don't really see it as being necessary as having it's own article. There really isn't much more that could be added to it, and once the cruft is removed I don't think it really stands on its own. Would anyone be adverse to a merge with this article, likely within The Joshua Tree subsection? MelicansMatkin ( talk) 02:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"Sonically, Achtung Baby incorporated dance, industrial, and alternative rock influences of the time and the band referred to the album as the sound of "four men chopping down the Joshua Tree"."
Does anybody other than music jounrnalists actually use the words 'sonic' or 'sonically' to describe music? I've never heard anyone use it in conversation. If this is a bit of journalese it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.195.104 ( talk) 19:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone think of an alternative word that's slightly more common parlance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.195.104 ( talk) 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FOR THE LAST SENTENCE IN SECTION 6...The correct word is WAS instead of WERE. A collective noun, according to Webster's II: New Riverside University Dictionary is: "A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit. usage: A collective noun takes a singular verb when the reference is to a group as a whole and a plural verb when the reference is to members of a group as single individuals: The orchestra was playing. The orchestra have all gone home.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.201.114 ( talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)