Talk:U2: Difference between revisions

The drive to FA

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

FA

• List of awards received by U2 (promoted 14 October 2007)
• U2 (promoted 23 January 2008)
• "City of Blinding Lights" (promoted 28 February 2010)
• No Line on the Horizon (promoted 1 June 2010)

Nearly ready for FAC

• Achtung Baby - needs a copyedit and possibly addition of how the breakup of Edge's marriage affected the sessions.
  • I received the 33 1/3 book some months ago - while very interesting, it is all full of opinion, and perhaps 70% of it gets right off the track of album and into religious discussions. THere might be some info that's OK for individual songs but it's not an easy one for the album article. --Merbabu (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• U2 3D - very nearly made it to A-class; it certainly isn't far off the mark. Should get DoL's say-so first as he's the man contributor (per FAC rules).

Not quite there, but not far off

• "Sunday Bloody Sunday" - nearly made it through FAC a year or two ago; polish, source, and add info regarding it's legacy (maybe remove "Other versions" too).
• "Where the Streets Have No Name" - split the PSB into another article, beef up reception and the references, and give it a copyedit.
• "Zooropa (song)" - needs a little work, but is fairly close. Ask DoL per U2 3D above.

Recently promoted to GA

• 1997 U2 concert in Sarajevo
• "Moment of Surrender" - may need to add additional composition details. Maybe ask around to see if anyone has the Hal Leonard book.
• "Running to Stand Still"
• The Joshua Tree
• "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)"
• "Zoo Station" - a few reference tweaks and a prose polish may be needed.

Ready for GAN

• "One (U2 song)" - as per "Streets"; beef up, source, and split MJB into a new article. Put through GAN and PR and it won't be far off from FAC.
• U2 360° Tour - just waiting on the rest of the 2010 support acts to be announced (four dates left), plus some ref additions/alterations.
• The Unforgettable Fire - flesh out some sections, source, and prose polish. Very close.
  • This still needs some work, but I'm going to nominate it now for a peer review. I'll continue to work on it particularly the composition section (no promises though) and hopefully by the time peer review is done, then it's ready for a GAN. --Merbabu (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Update: I have dug up a few reviews which I will add soon. And more importantly, I have printed out a paper copy and covered it in red ink and I hope to transfer this to the article in the next few days. The composition section is a bit ordindary and I’d like to structure it loosely into a music then lyrics order of things (as much as it can be without being overally strict) – much like we did with Achtung Baby recently. There are still a few sources that should be consulted/checked but (apart from the composition section) it's already a quality article as it is. There are no real holes rather the other sources might provide a bit of garnish. --Merbabu (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Zoo TV Tour - few more references and some copyediting needed: nominated

On the road to GAN

• Bono - Prose polish, source, and ensure it is neutal POV; build a little more if possible (always more to add!)
• Pop (album) - expand a few sections and source more thoroughly.
• "Stand Up Comedy (song)" - might be a bit of a stretch, but if Composition can really be fleshed out it will be very close.
• "Unknown Caller" - between "MoS" and "SUC"; bit more for Composition, and it will probably be ready.
• "With or Without You" - there's more than enough information out there for this article to really be fleshed out.
• Zooropa - flesh out Release and Reception, and maybe Composition. Do a bit more on the reference front and it should be ready.

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

I think U2 3D is ready for an FAC, but I'm still skeptical. It sat in A-class review for 2½ months last year and then was just marked as "Failed" one day with no reason stated. I was thinking about another peer review, but if others don't think it's necessary, then I'd say go for it. Zooropa (song) is also coming along well, and needs some work before an FAC but its not too far off, like you said –Dream out loud (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chalk that one up to either a backlog or a lack of reviewers; GAN, PR, and FAC have all had similar problems recently. I'd say to just go for it and nominate; I'm not really sure if a Peer Review could accomplish much for it at this point. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon has been nominated for the third time. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And promoted. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion

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

I think the nomination is laughable to begin with. If it were to pass, what's there to stop all live photos of concert stages from being deleted? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I use one of those in my U2 user box! On all sorts of wiki, thanks to it being on Commons. I pop into U2 editing for a bit and find all the PopMart images up for deletion :P I added my opinion on Commons. "Let's go shopping" for full res copies of all of the pictures. delirious & lost ☯ ^~нuɢѕ~ 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have pictures from PopMart? Apparently you can't take pictures in Italy. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Maybe there are some on Flickr that we will be able to use and transfer over under the appropriate license... Anybody know how that process works? Quite a few articles have been affected by this removal. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of finding a suitable replacement on Flickr, assuming there is one. But future reference, this is how you would go about it. On the advanced search page of Flickr, check the "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content" box, along with the "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon" box. This will limit the results to Creative Commons material. When you find a picture you think qualifies, visit the picture page and click on the copyright details at the bottom. If you get redirected to page with a license that displays a "Certified for creative works" badge, it's good to go. Then you can use User:Flickr upload bot to take care of the uploading for you (assuming you already have a Wikicommons account). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was disappointing. The best free pictures available were mostly by one user who would not license them under a free enough license. I'm curious whether we can have those deleted photos re-uploaded, but this time just to Wikipedia (not commons), and this time, under a non-free license. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

And it doesnt even fix that sentence. It would be the difference between consist/consists 98.244.81.179 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Former members

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

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

Discography protocol

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

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

thoughts?204.65.34.55 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

EDUN

THe EDUN article was marked for speedy deletion. While it meets notability criteria, it is appallingly written. Anyone want to help rescue it. There are a number of media articles out there that I've read. atu2.com archives might be a good place to start. --Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Only a brief mentioning of their appearance on The Simpsons

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

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

Irish or from Ireland?

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

Settle down - it's dumb way to start a conversation with accusations of "hijacking", "bigotry", and "political agendas", and it's plain WP:UNCIVIL and fails WP:AGF. You've been around here long enough to know better. --Merbabu (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know I should know better, but I am starting to see this all over Wikipedia regarding Irish figures, and yes I know what I stated fails WP:AGF and WP:UNCIVIL,but my patience is wearing thin with articles being subverted to poor standards and the certain motivations of a few, I know you may think it sounds dumb but its true,but one must be sensationalist sometimes to attract dialogue.Sheodred (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Or you could have simply posted this message like a normal, civilized person and we would have seen the message all the same. The rationale behind not saying Irish is simple - only half of the band was born in Ireland, the others were born in the UK and moved to Ireland in their youth. Nationality is a tricky issue and instead of making things complicated and keeping a statement that can be debated, we are wording their origin in a plain, simple way which gets the exact same point across. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that "U2 are an Irish band" is better. However, if it helps "consensus" (and it has in the past) I can also accept "U2 are a band from Ireland" as there have been many who have challenged the former statement. The first 10 seconds of this video suggest that the band are happy either way too - in fact, Bono's words here are uncanny. --Merbabu (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All the other articles in every other language except the english one, state specifically that they are an "Irish rock band", why should it be different with the english version?Sheodred (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because a group of editors doesn't want it to be changed. DC T•C 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A vote should be done.Sheodred (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the editors who dispute "Irish band" are still around, but an attempt should be made to include them in any discussion on this topic. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we should wait five days, and after those 5 days if the majority opposes it, then I will accept it.Sheodred (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny that Oasis is listed as an English rock band even though Andy Bell is Welsh... I would support the change to Irish rock band. Bjmullan (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Result= Irish is being put back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheodred (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy; votes count for nothing. Did you even bother to contact any of the editors who have previously been involved in discussions on this subject? I know that I certainly did not get a message about this discussion on my talk page. Consensus hasn't changed just because you said "lets wait five days" and then didn't bother to get in touch with any interested parties. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Notification is a simple courtesy that should be extended to all people, regardless of where the material is being discussed. A proper discussion with a proper outcome can not occur if only one side is aware that the discussion is even taking place.

I oppose simply for accuracy reasons. The band was formed in Ireland, and two members were born there. However the other two were born in England and, so far as the last time I heard, are both considered residents there since they both use the English passport. The band may be from Ireland, but I seriously doubt they can be considered an Irish band when only half of the members are actually Irish. It is the reason why I support the current wording of "a rock band from Dublin, Ireland". It is more accurate and it gets the point across. That there are Irish themes in their music is not a strong argument; half of their material in the 1980s, and a fair bit in the years after, strongly feature American themes and inspirations, but that by no means makes them an American band; The Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum in particular were saturated with "America".

And before anyone starts thinking I'm being a "bigoted editor" who doesn't want U2 to be called Irish "due to their political agendas masqueraded as editorial policy", I will just point out now that, like The Interior, I am a Canadian, that I have been a Canadian for my entire life, and I do not have a bigoted or a political agenda; I'm probably about as neutral as you can get ;-). In fact, I don't think there are people who regularly edit the U2 articles that could be considered biased in any manner, except for their enjoyment of the music; at my last count of the five main editors there are three Americans, one Australian, and one Canadian. It simply does not make sense to me to label U2 as an Irish band when that may not even be accurate. Do the Irish consider U2 to be one of their bands? Of course, and it doesn't surprise me that they would think so. But being a band from Ireland is a very different thing from being an Irish band. U2 have often described themselves as "a band of the world", so I would suggest that they don't particularly care either way. :-) Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been opposed to the wording "Irish band" merely because the consensus had been established and I did not want edit warring, but if we are going to revisit this topic, I would support "Irish band". The band considers themselves to be Irish - Bono's introduction of the band at Live Aid in 1985 bears this out. Two of the members were born there, one has lived there since age 1, and the other first lived there at age 5. For the longest time, the band was headquartered there, lived and raised their families there. If either Adam or The Edge have ever called themselves British or English, that would be one thing, but I don't believe the band ever identified themselves with England/Britain, particularly when discussing the conditions of Ireland compared to their neighbors. As far as I know, all of them are citizens of Ireland. Heck, their live DVD U2 Go Home is named in reference to their appearance at Slane Castle in Ireland. If this isn't enough, I would say we try and find a wide range of reliable sources that refer to them as an Irish to support.

With that said, you can't start a dispute, wait 5 days, and after exactly zero activity, simply claim the consensus has changed. That isn't how a consensus is built whatsoever. Plus, I doubt a lot of people in the US would be available to chime in since it's the holiday weekend. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

After a bit of research, I can see this is going to be a difficult one, as nationality is both a legal status and a self-identified concept, and bands don't have passports As a humourous aside, Melicans, I am Irish-born (so legally Irish), a Canadian citizen (so legally Canadian), but self-identify as Canadian. So I guess I feel as Y2kcrazyjoker4 does, that if U2 say they're Irish, and identify Ireland as "home", we should use the demonym. But I agree that applying it is problematic as well, perhaps ORey. Sorry for being a bit snarky about the notification thing, discussion is what makes this place great, but I do feel it's an individual editor's responsibility to monitor the talk pages he/she is interested in, and if they missed the boat on a discussion, to restart it rather than revert changes made in the meantime. But that's procedural nit-picking. So. back on task - would it be significant, from a legal perspective, that the corporate entity of U2 is Ireland-based and therefore an "Irish" entity? The Interior(Talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I concede on the themes point, I guess by that rationale the Dropkick Murphys would be an Irish band. ;-) The Interior(Talk) 23:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have 1977 individual pages on my watchlist, not including talk pages. Sometimes, especially in exam times like now, I miss edits and/or comments that are made; in this case, given the choice of heading and that it was posted a day after "City of Blinding Lights" was on the front page, and that the talk page for it had received negative comments under a similar heading, I chose to ignore it when seeing that Merbabu and Y2kcrazyjoker4 had responded since I thought it was just more people "raging" that U2 had been on the front page. When there were no more comments in the following days, I just put it out of my mind since most discussions tend to be long and drawn-out. But enough of that tangent.

I don't think it is overly significant. Something like 90%-95% of U2's business is based outside of Ireland, IIRC from the newspaper articles when they moved part of it out of the country a few years ago. I don't see it as providing a distinction one way or another between "Irish band" or "band from Ireland". It could be read either way quite easily. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize how contentious previous discussions on this topic were. Check this out to see what I mean. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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

All the members of U2 have lived in Ireland for almost their entire lives, its funny that this nationality issue is only related to a famous Irish band and not for example Oasis, you cannot call them an English band because one of them is Welsh, that is the rationale you are using, U2 is more Irish then Oasis is English if you want to use that comparison, and if so Oasis as an example cannot be stated as an English band in that case, if you want to go there.Sheodred (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on building consensus not “proof” as you put it. Wikipedia can say that Michael Jackson wrote Lord of The Rings if that is the consensus. Also, quit implying that this is some sort of nationalist-based bias. Of the three long term editors who have maintained the consensus to this point, one is Australian, one American, and one Canadian. We’re above your petty but long-standing Irish-British squabbles. It may not have been the intent, but framing our actions as such is completely against WP:AGF and if it continues I’m more than happy to report it to administrators. Instead of playing the nationalism card, maybe you could look up WP:RS that support U2 Irishness – hint: find sources that Edge and Adam consider themselves, but more importantly, U2 as being Irish. --Merbabu (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I edit articles about the subjects I am interested in, Sheodred. I have no interest in Oasis and have never even looked at, let alone edited, the Oasis article. If I did, I would have brought it up on Talk:Oasis years ago. I think you need to take some time to calm down if you want to avoid launching into any more bad-faith tirades that will get you nowhere in discussions with other editors. We're more than open to talk about it; but not if this is the attitude you keep bringing. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am fine, but it is you haas some kind of problem regarding the exclusion of mentioning the fact that U2 are in fact Irish, it is common knowledge, what do you have to gain by excluding that, but saying they are from Ireland, in fact why don't we exclude the nationality of every single band on wikipedia and just mention what country they are from (sarcasm). Don't be ridiculous.Sheodred (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Are you alone in your opposition? I opposed the change earlier, though I did not bold it then (something I've now rectified just so that it is easier for others to see). Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Support let's be consistent with every other band's article. "The Beatles are an English band." "The Who are an English band." Hell, "AC/DC is an Australian band" despite their two main members being from Scotland. Why don't you people start a pissing contest there too? DC T•C 07:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What others do is a fairly weak argument. It begs the proverbial "would you jump off a cliff" question. Do what's best for this article based on the merits of this argument - not the (possibly stupid) position of other articles. --Merbabu (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the "God Save the Queen" crowd who's driving this article of the cliff. DC T•C 08:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"The God Save The Queen crowd"? Are you for real or just being a troll? Either way, you need to grow up and show some respect to good faith editors. No-one's accusing you of bad motives - bad arguments perhaps, but not bad faith.--Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting very tired of these bad-faith accusations that somehow a non-existant allegiance to the British crown from the three principal editors of the article is destroying the article. We're willing to debate respectfully and civilly; why can't anyone else? Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The status quo is "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland." - both of the options you provide are new. please clarify. --Merbabu (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for your benefit, you should read this archived discussion on this very topic. We're not just blowing smoke or having this discussion for the sake of of entertaining ourselves. It's a complicated topic. Just because one article did something doesn't mean that it's best served for this article. The merits of each side's arguments should be considered, instead of writing off the discussion as unnecessary altogether. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there is something from the book U2: An Irish Phenomenon that can be used to demonstrate that U2 is indeed Irish and that all band members identify as such. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually just checked the book out from the library this morning. I'll read through it and see what I can find. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

take a look at the chapter "Irishness and Independence" from above book on Google books: U2:An Irish Phenomenon by Visnja Cogan, just reading through it, but it appears that both Bono and this author are fairly emphatic on the demonym "Irish" to describe the band. Will read more and comment further. The Interior(Talk) 19:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• "a band formed in Dublin, Ireland" is my own preference, for reasons that I think I have adequately explained above. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Here's a question for those supporting "band formed in Dublin." Are there any sources which do not refer to them as Irish? Has the band ever stated they are not Irish? If not, the claim that we cannot call them Irish because two members were born elsewhere is a synthetic one. DC T•C 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not until you answer why "U2 are from Ireland" is inaccurate. You actually haven't done that - you've just said you want "are Irish", that anyone who disagrees with this are biased (Australian, American, Canadian) British nationalists, and that other stuff exists.--Merbabu (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

PS - you don't understand WP:SYN. In fact, WP:SYN more strongly supports "from Ireland". labelling is a synthethis. If you're going to waste people's time and accuse good faith editors of bad faith, then at least come with decent arguments. --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And you haven't said why you prefer formed in Dublin (which isn't the same as from Ireland) outside of it's already that way. And if you feel I'm wasting your time, you're free to do something else. DC T•C 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The article says "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland." That is what I support, and I have very clearly stated why - it's there for you to read. no need to repeat yet again. Skimming through all the above, it appears to be that you are the one who introduced the idea of "U2 are a band formed in Dublin Ireland", and I am not advocating this. Please correct me if this is incorrect. --Merbabu (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, this is why I shouldn't edit after long days at the office (though I could've sworn at one point it was founded or formed in Dublin). DC T•C 03:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

As far i see U2, i have always seen them regarded as an Irish band. Stating "Dublin, Ireland" to me is more controversial as it opens up the confusion with the island when the band is from the country, and i would rather support "Dublin, Republic of Ireland" than just Ireland. Though i don't really see whats the problem with stating "Irish band", its not like they were formed in Northern Ireland where calling them Irish would cause an arguement. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. "Dublin, Ireland" is the common way to refer to the city of Dublin and the country of Ireland, just as Irish is the common way to refer to someone from the country of Ireland. No one would ever confuse the statement "Dublin, Ireland" as generalizing Dublin into the greater island.

I think the hardest thing to define is what makes a group of people a certain nationality. Is it where they formed the group (Ireland)? Is it the individual birthplaces of the members? Is it the combined current citizenships of the individual members? Is it the combined longest-standing citizenships of the individual members? Is it where they based their operations for most of their existence (Ireland)? Is it what they identify with and call themselves? I feel like I've seen an argument for every single one of these before... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Please be civil and comment on content, not editors. Canterbury Tail talk 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The birthplace of band members is not the reason I and other editors are oppposing it. please read it and don't present strawman arguments even if unintentional. (and if I had time this morning I'd be requesting admin advice on your insistance of accusing us of bad faith/motives.) --Merbabu (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead,request it, I will not lose any sleep, I love it how you attempt to discredit my points as being a "strawman argument",you should also check some of the 'uncivil" comments that was left on my talk page, hypocritical really, but then this is the kind of people I am dealing with here.Sheodred (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This condescending attitude is exactly what I was talking about on your talk page when I said you were being uncivil. Granted, you aren't the only one to lose your cool, but you are just making this situation worse.

Do you have a reference that says that The Edge and Clayton are Irish citizens? The opposing party from the archived debate in 2006 said that The Edge was a British citizen and had never applied for Irish citizenship (although this may have changed since then). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't about citizenship of individual band members. It's about how the band self-identifies, and how reliable sources refer to them. DC T•C 23:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Can you explain how it's synthesis to refer to them as "Irish" if both the band and reliable sources call them it? DC T•C 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it would be synthesis to ascribe nationality to the bands' members, unless we have a definitive source where both Mr. Evans and Clayton state what they feel is their true nationality. Of course I feel weird doing the opposite, that is saying they aren't Irish, so I feel we must meet in the middle, and avoid the demonym. My main position after this discussion is that nationality, on WP, should not be emphasized. The article makes it clear that Ireland is core to the bands identity, and that's what I find to be important, not whether they are "Irish-Irish", "British-Irish" or "Ugandan". My Irish roots want them to be "Irish", but my inner Wikipedian tells me that the adjective is not entirely accurate, at least from a Verifiability point of view. The Interior(Talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting case study would be Arcade Fire, which in press, is often called a "Canadian band", but our article avoids the term because the American birthplace of two key members. The Canadian in me wants to claim them as my own, and the Butler brothers may well be honorary Canadians, but "Canadian band" would not be accurate there. The Interior(Talk) 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But we're not ascribing it to the individual members, but to the band itself. Sources generally refer to them as Irish. Rolling Stone refers to them as the four Irishmen and the Rock HOF uses the term Irish quartet to describe them. Time magazine calls them Irish [2] [3]. Ditto for Spin magazine. Hell, even the British Broadcasting Co uses the term Irish. Plus, there was the book that Y2k provided. DC T•C 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And in regards to the Arcade Fire example, see AC/DC where the two main members are Scotish, but we still call the band Australian. DC T•C 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I can see where you're coming from, and hopefully this kind of debate can continue. I'm heading out for the night, but will contribute more tomorrow or on the weekend. Thanks DC for some strong discussion points. The Interior(Talk) 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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