Talk:Bono/Archive 3

Name of Article
I would have thought that the more appropriate name for this article would be "Paul David Hewson" perhaps with Bono in brackets and certainly a redirect from the search Bono, I would have thought that this would have been much more in line with wikipedia's naming conventions. 220.239.172.88 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC) This page should be a redirect to the Bono disambiguation considering this is not his real name. Paul David Hewson should be where this page is placed. → Johnny-Who? 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonojohn (talk • contribs)

Regarding His Religion
Why does he have a category that states Irish Anglican when we have no proof of what religion he chose growing up, therefore it should not be stated in the article at all. I've tried to remove it but when I do somebody scolds me and says that I have no right editing what I do not know. I was wondering if anyone could clarify to me why Anglican should be stated if we have no proof. Just because he was married in an Anglican Ceremony does not necessarily mean that he is Anglican. Thanks SpecialAgentUncleTito 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)SpecialAgentUncleTito
 * I have no idea! Never be afraid to edit and don't let other editors scare you away (even me).  Always be bold and edit.  Now, I'm not sure if it states somehwere that he is in "Irish Anglican" or if you are just referring to the category listing.  If you are referring to the latter, feel free to remove it. If someone wishes to keep it here, simply list the references here, and it can stay.  If it says it somewhere in the article, it can be removed.  If sources are found, then they should be added to the article directly and the statement left in. Chupper 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no references to support such a category. From memory, he did attend church as a kid with his protestant mother (not his catholic old man). And on the subject, Bono has said he prefers to be denomination-less (or words to that effect). I've never heard himself say he is one or the other. It's a tricky one, but on balance, I'd say either remove it, or put add Catholic too - but both would be kind of dumb (lol). What about simply "Christian"? --Merbabu 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There probably shouldn't be any religion category unless it is based on a mention in the article - and it shouldn't be mentioned in the article unless there is a source. So, I'd say remove it. -- Renesis (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys. I just thought I'd bring it up to what you would do since we definately don't want a revert war. SpecialAgentUncleTito 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Just to mention, I recall once years ago Bono was introducing Frank Sinatra at some award show, and he said something on the lines of, "this just goes to prove that God is Catholic." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) To add to that I remember a concert that he commented on the Edge not being Catholic stating that it was too glamorous for the Edge. It somewhat infers that Bono is Catholic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) According to Eamonn Dunphy's biography "The Unforgettable Fire" Bono's parents agreed that the eldest child would be brought up Protestant and the second Catholic. However, Bono went to protestant services with his mother and brother. --Halcyonicity 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Halcyonicity
 * Do you think this info should be added? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  If you want to add it, I would say go for it. Chupper 22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, just added the info - halcyonicity 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Any additions to wikipedia must provide verifiable and reliable sources. Ie, not “I heard it somewhere”. Further, article talk pages are for the sole purpose of improving the articles – nothing else, including chit chat. Kind regards Merbabu 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * General comments...
 * We're trying to help by providing additional information that can act as a lead for you big, professional Wikipedian editors to go on in researching information that can be added to the article for purposes of improvement. So how about you do some research and stop making "General Comments," because this page is meant to discuss ways to improve the Bono article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.215.97 (talk • contribs).
 * And the information is appreciated. Please continue to provide information here on the talk page even if you don't have a reference.  Wikipedia does have a funny, but needed policy called Please do not bite the newcomers.  We'll try to be more supportive in our dialogue.  I know often I, and sometimes others, get kinda moody on here fighting so much vandalism and stupid edits.  Please forgive us if we ever accidentally consider your helpful edits as unhelpful :).  Two things:
 * If you ever want to add something to an article and can't find a reference or don't know how to use referencing, feel free to leave a comment here or on my talk page and state that you are looking for a reference. I or we'll see what we can do.
 * Also, never feel like you can't edit the page. Be bold & edit!  Even if it gets reverted, there is nothing wrong with making an edit. (only exception to this is if a page is semi or fully protected)
 * Chupper 03:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

More references needed!
The bottom line here is this article needs more references. Please feel free to add in citations! I'll get to work on it as much as possible, but assistance from others would also be appreciated. There are several statements which remain unreferenced, and in my opinion, need referencing. Thanks! Chupper 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One can never have enough references, but I'm going to remove the tag from the top - that's used when there are hardly any refs. If specific references are required, please place a tag at that point. Merbabu 12:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the tag can now be moved. I originally added the tag to the whole article, and then added a bunch of those references.  The section tagged, "Other endeavours", could now use the work as well as "Equipment". Chupper 13:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eamonn Dunphy's biography of U2 is probably the most comprehensive on the early life of the band members and the early years of U2, yet it is not listed as a reference. Also the reference to "Bono on Bono" takes me to a "book not found" link when I click on it. --Halcyonicity 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)halcyonicity
 * Check the ISBN of Bono on Bono. I'm not a big fan for URL's of books, but I know some people prefer them.  URLs go bad, books do not.  Anyways, I've removed the link, thanks for the info.  Feel free to add in the reference to further reading, or add in information using it as a source.  I'm assuming its a reputable source based upon what you said. Chupper 22:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs of parents
According to Bono's 2006 address a the National Prayer Breakfast, his father was Protestant and his mother was Catholic - the Bono Wikipedia page has these reversed. 12.152.229.212 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Double check your reference. Bono's own words: "he was a Catholic, my mother was a Protestant".  Check footnote 3.  I just verified it and the article is correct. Chupper 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on IMDB
Just a interesting fact I learned about the IMDB. I noticed that there was new (unreferenced information) that was copied verbatim from this page and put onto the IMDB page. Therefore, it might not be the best idea to cite the IMDB in this article. Just a thought. Chupper 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement
I moved this from the article: Bono was also an avid chess player in his youth and had won community games medals with his local team. Thanks for this contribution, but two things: Thanks, Chupper 13:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Can we get a reference for this? and
 * 2) I feel like this is just kinda thrown in there, it doesn't really work with the flow of the section. If we do get a reference for it, any ideas on where it could be reinserted?  Is it important enough to be mentioned?
 * Well, he was a good chess player apparently as a kid. I have a ref or two somewhere. Try 'U2 by U2'. Merbabu 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, well I'll check it out. Do you think it is important enough to be mentioned, though? Chupper 23:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

got rid of some crticism
Got rid of Bianca Jagger and the other guy's criticism. Seriously they basically said "Hey, we don't like BONO for going with "the man". Well that is very subjective and utter trash Yeah the RED thing is another b.s. criticism. I mean for one that's not a real criticism...But let's pretend it was. If it was a real criticism then it should go under RED's article Zephead999 00:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazing. The following text was removed (too critical of Bono, I suspect (the original Wikipedia article can still be found here: http://www.woofactor.com/celebrities/Bono/biography/):

Criticism Along with Bob Geldof, Bono has come under fire from radical journalist George Monbiot for getting too close to those in power, and therefore running the risk of legitimising their actions. Monbiot dubbed the pair "Bards of the Powerful". http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1510808,00.html. They have also drawn criticism from Bianca Jagger for "trying to patent the language of poverty reduction" and that his cozy relationship with the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair amounts to little more than a "mutual admiration club" http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/articles/2677.html. Bono has also been criticized for his connection with the war game Mercenaries 2: "many people around the world have been shocked to find out that you are a part owner, through Elevation Partners, of Pandemic/Bioware producers of “Mercenaries 2” [...] a war game that simulates the invasion of Venezuela in the year 2007.".http://www.spin.com/features/news/2006/07/060710_bono/http://www.venezuelasolidarity.org/files/BonoLetter.pdf


 * Mmhhmmhh 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmhhmmhh - yes someone removed that content from the criticism section. The original text can actually be found within Wikipedia.  Just click on "history" when viewing the article.  You can view any and all edits made to the page since the article creation!  Now, did you have an opinion regarding this?  Did you feel as if it shouldn't have been removed?  You didn't really state your thoughts or why you felt the way you did... Chupper 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because some crying sycophant doesn't like the truth about this marauding sociopath, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be on the article. I think this criticism is integral to building an understanding of his infamy, perhaps simply only as a fair juxtaposition against the sickeningly indulgent rubbish that constitutes the rest of the article.  Put the criticism back in.
 * Indja 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indja, please do not refer to other editors (or me) as "crying sycophants". Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia.  Also, unless you've got a reference stating that a psychiatrist or psychologist has diagnosed Bono with psychopathy, lets leave the sarcasm out.  Or, in other words, cut the crap ;).  Critical points of an individual's biography aren't included to provide a "fair juxtaposition against the sickeningly indulgent rubbish that constitutes the rest of the article".  Critical points are included to maintain an unbiased presentation of the subject throughout the article.  If you have such a problem with the rest of the article, then edit it, but be sure to use references! Chupper 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be healthy critiques of someone who is out there asking us to join in his humanitarian efforts. His administrative costs for DATA should be reconciled and his cavorting with teens in St. Tropez while his wife and four children are an ocean away proves a very inconsistent person. He is the king of paradox, but this behavior is too far on the side of dissapointing ego massaging. Very sad. Even the best men, Kennedy, Clinton, and others have lost stature due to sexual indiscretion. Very sad.

Removal of equipment section
I noticed someone removed a lot of information from the equipment section. I'm wondering why? I know none of it was referenced, but the editor just took out the unreferenced paragraph and added back in an unreferenced sentence. I'm thinking an unreferenced paragraph is better than an unreferenced section. Chupper 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm moving it here. If this information can be referenced we'll add it back in.  If it has enough content then we'll use a subsection. Chupper 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bono is credited on each album with guitar work, and plays rhythm guitar for certain songs during live shows. He has typically been seen with a Gibson ES-175, Gibson ES-335, Gretsch Country Club and Gibson Hummingbird. As of 2001, Gretsch produces his signature guitar model, the Gretsch Irish Falcon. In many ways identical to a Country Club, it comes with an exclusive emerald green paintjob, gold hardware and an inscription on the pickguard reading "The goal is soul." Bono has additionally been spotted using a Fender Telecaster Deluxe, Gretsch Chet Atkins, Fender Lead, Gretsch Black Falcon, Gibson L-7 and 2 Gibson Les Paul customs. He uses a Vox AC-30 amplifier like The Edge. Additionally, he plays piano on the studio version of "City of Blinding Lights" (although Adam Clayton does during concerts), and played piano during Elevation Tour performances of "The Sweetest Thing". The song "Window in the Skies" reportedly features him on some piano parts. He also plays harmonica on the studio and live versions of "Desire" and "Running to Stand Still", and recently live on "Angel of Harlem". Bono nearly always uses inexpensive Shure SM-58 or Beta 58 handheld dynamic microphones in the studio and on stage. However, the highly sought-after vintage AKG C12 valve condenser microphone was used on some tracks on The Unforgettable Fire.

Knight of the British Empire
Recently the addition of Bono's knighthood has been reverted from the lead paragraph. I find this puzzling and inconsistent as his failed Academy Award nomination merits a mention in the introduction. Bob Geldorf's knighthood is noted after his name. I think that regardless of some editors' anti-British bias, the honour should be included for the simple reason that Bono was happy to accept it, which he was under no obligation to do, and that says something about the man. Natalie West 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to be in Archive 2 - please read. Any change should take into account (but no, not be bound by) previous discussion. Also, I doubt it was your intent, but suggesting an anti-British bias motivates editors could be perceived by some as not assuming good faith. Kind regards Merbabu 02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the archive and the consensus appears to be to include the KBE. That's why I'm surprised that it's been reverted. Bono's acceptance of the knighthood is a verifiable and indisputable fact and it is encylopaedic to include it. Previous nominees have declined honours for political reasons, they are sounded out before hand to avoid embarrassment to the establishment. That Bono chose to accept a formal and somewhat archaic title (particularly in the context of him being an Irishman), is a convincing argument for it's inclusion here. I think It says something about his political convictions (or lack of) that he received the honour with it's associated connotations of Empire. I did not mean to assume bad faith and I can perfectly understand why a republican minded Australian might object to it, but I think the point here is that Bono does not. Natalie West 04:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * lol - you don't mean to assume bad faith, but you assume I object as a "republican minded" Australian? ;-)
 * Humour aside, no-one disputes he accepted the award, and as my political opinion seems important to you in this debate (and others possibly), let it be known that I was well-chuffed when I heard of his award. But, that he accepted the award is not what is being discussed - rather, whether the letters actually go after his name. I would like to see his name written somewhere else with the letters, rather than making assumptions. That he has happily accepted one country's award, does it mean that an international encyclopedia needs to abide by that country's conventions? (PS, back to the Republican Australian thing - assuming I was one, that doesn't mean Britain-hater, or shame/embarrassment over a British heritage - on the contrary, but it is irrelevant). Merbabu 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. Consensus prior to this has been that the KBE should be left in.  I did disagree with that then and I disagree with it now.  I just felt like it was kind of silly to add in the initials, then add in a footnote saying "Since he is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, Bono is ineligible for a substantive honour and so his KBE is honorary".  I was thinking why not just keep this in the "recognition" section and summarize the key elements in the lead section?  Natalie, you stated "I find this puzzling and inconsistent as his failed Academy Award nomination merits a mention in the introduction."  I totally agree here.  Per WP:LEAD the lead paragraph or section should "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."  This article has been in need of a good lead section for quite some time now.  I'll see if I can't write one up and see if anybody likes it.  My feeling is the fact he was given an honorary knighthood should be included in the lead section, but just not as initials, but it should be included with some other items of recognition. Chupper 12:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * re academy award nom, it used to be the second sentence! I say remove it from the lead. Really, a bit of trivia. Merbabu 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, it's a POV here, but  I believe it is wrong for the letters KBE to follow Bono's name as much as it is wrong that it follows Steven Spielberg's name or any other non-british national's name. Why should this honour be recognised more highly with an actual marking of someones name? it also has the inherent message of ownership of that person's achievements to Britain. It is mentioned in the recognition section- I believe that is enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Good rational and logic. But the great 'God of conformity' seems to be winning here despite logic to the contrary, and no doubt it will accuse you of anti-British bias (groan). Merbabu 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if consensus has been that the KBE be included, then why isn't it there? No one has answered my point that Bono accepted the honour when plenty of people haven't, including David Bowie and Irishman Kenneth Branagh. (See list of people who have declined a British honour). Presumably people accept these things partly so that they can be included in encyclopedias, it's hard to see where else Bono would use the post nominal. Regarding anti-British bias, by suggesting it, one gets officiously reminded of not assuming good faith, which is absurd as I'm not suggesting that the editor concerned is trying to harm the project. Natalie West 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? "Irishman, Kenneth Branagh"? Last time I looked, Ken was from up the road in Belfast, a major British city.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.235.176 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As i already said, no is denying that Bono accepted the award. What you haven't answered is why it means we should put some letters that come from one single country against his name. I also requested that we be provided with another example of Bono's name being used with the letters. It wasn't consensus - it was a majority, that still doesn't mean that opinion had a good case, or that it may have changed. Oh, i don't think you get the idea of good faith - ie, it accusations of bias that don't help the project. Merbabu 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so I'm the one trying to harm the project and thanks for pointing out the difference between consensus and majority. I have answered why the KBE should be included, but will repeat the reasons since you insist. So despite the above and a majority opinion, you decide that opinion is wrong and as the guardian of this page, revert. Talk about flogging a dead horse! Take a look at Lamest edit wars. Natalie West 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Well I think it's alright for editors to disagree over elements of an article. I think that is what makes Wikipedia, Wikipedia :). When such conflicts exist, we get a consensus from the group of editors and use that as a guide.  Also, I don't and never thought it was silly to talk about this, even in great detail.  Obviously several people feel strongly either way about this and that should be respected. Let's keep it simple and gain a consensus here.  I've created a new subsection below.  I'll copy people's text into there (including their reasons) and write whether they feel the KBE should be included or not included in the lead sentence.  I hope no one is offended by this, I just think it would make things more clear.  If I made an error, feel free to change something.  If there is something I didn't copy that you wanted to include, feel free to make more comments.  Additional opinions would also be appreciated.  Because polling is not a substitute for discussion please write *Include or *Don't include, your reasoning, and your signature using ~. Thanks. Chupper 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By accepting the honour Bono has agreed that the title be used in formal address such as in encyclopedias.
 * Honours are internationally recognized in governmental and diplomatic circles along with awards from  other nations.
 * For the sake of conformity with other wikipedia entries on Knights.
 * It is revealing of Bono's personality that he accepted the honour with it's associated connotations of Empire.

Consensus

 * Don't include KBE - I just feet like it is kind of silly to add in the initials, then add in a footnote saying "Since he is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, Bono is ineligible for a substantive honour and so his KBE is honorary". I was thinking why not just keep this in the "recognition" section and summarize the key elements in the lead section? Chupper 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Natalie West did bring up that KBE should be included "For the sake of conformity with other wikipedia entries on Knights". While it is not required that we conform with other articles, she does bring up a solid point.  Personally I feel the KBE should not be included in the lead sentence of any article.  It might not be a bad idea though for others to address this point. Chupper 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Include KBE -
 * By accepting the honour Bono has agreed that the title be used in formal address such as in encyclopedias. Natalie West 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * really? Do you have a source for that? Another example even?
 * Honours are internationally recognized in governmental and diplomatic circles along with awards from other nations.Natalie West 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And? That doesn't mean we have to stick those letters after his name. And do you have an example of another country's letters? Merbabu 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of conformity with other wikipedia entries on Knights.Natalie West 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you jump off a cliff if everyone else (apparently) was? WP:Conform no matter what is yet to be created. ;) Merbabu 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is revealing of Bono's personality that he accepted the honour with it's associated connotations of Empire. Natalie West 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with the letters after his name? Merbabu 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't include KBE - I believe it is wrong for the letters KBE to follow Bono's name as much as it is wrong that it follows Steven Spielberg's name or any other non-british national's name. Why should this honour be recognised more highly with an actual marking of someones name? it also has the inherent message of ownership of that person's achievements to Britain. It is mentioned in the recognition section- I believe that is enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Don't include KBE. It's one country's tradition - why apply it to another country's citizens in an internationally focussed encyclopedia? No-one has provided a reason why Bono's acceptance of an award automatically means we need to put these initials after his name - not one reason, we are just told "it's the way it is". What other country's awards are put onto someone's name like that? If people think my comments makes me an anti-British Republican minded Australian, that is your own mistaken assumption, but even though it suggests a problem with the concept of AGF, I cannot change that assumption. Merbabu 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Include* what possible reason is there for not including it, he is a Knight Commander of the British Empire, and as such should be honoured with KBE after his name, to say that it is pointless because he is not a commonwealth citizen is stupid, all that means is we do not title him Sir Paul Hewson KBE, all it means is he is not allowed to be addressed as Sir, it is stupid to not inculude this prestigeous honour.Zepher25 13:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Zepher25, the reasons we aren't including it are above. The fact that he is not a commonwealth citizen is, frankly, not one of the big reasons it is not included.  Wikipedia does not exist to showcase a "prestigeous honour".  Don't forget that this is already mentioned in the recognition section.  Please counter specific statements already made (or come up with new ones) if you disagree.  I've noticed its popped up back into the lead sentence.  Per the consensus here, including Zepher's current comments, it should not be included (at this time anyway). Chupper 17:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't Include as per the rationale provided by Merbabu and Chupper. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Include I thought people automatically had the letters after their name on Wikipedia (except for example, Americans). Other Commonweath countries besides the UK recognise these letters and allow people to use them in their country(eg Australia). Why would Bono not have them on Wikipedia when Bob Geldof does?- how often is Geldof referred to as Bob Geldof, KBE? He is usually known just as Sir Bob Geldof. These awards are not entirely honorary- they become substantial if the recipient becomes British/Commonwealth citizen. Just because he is not as widely known as Paul Hewson, KBE, is no reason not to have the letters after his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.177.94 (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

100 Greatest Britons
If you want to call the Duke of Wellington "Irish" you have to call The Edge and Clayton "British". You can't have it both ways. Wellington was born in Ireland before it was independent and to an English - NOT Irish - family, and made his career and name in England for the British Army. He famously said he was not Irish. So, using this information and the rational you all insist on using to avoid calling the aforementioned U2 members "British" one must call the Duke "British". Otherwise you prove the point of many who have commented on the individual articles on the band members. -- 195.92.40.49 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We're going to keep this simple and just use what the reference tells us - that he is on the list. We're not saying he is #86 (until someone finds a reference stating that), and we won't say his is one of two or three or that anyone else is or isn't Irish. Chupper 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its off the point of the article but I think you will find that Arthur Wellesley's family had been living in Ireland since the 13th century. Hardly a blow in! I question your assersion that "he famously said he was not Irish". If you are referring to the barn/horse metaphor, this can be interpretted in many ways. What it does clearly underline, however, is his rather sharp irish wit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilachrys (talk • contribs) 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

04.07.07 Edits
I've made some significant edits today to the article, including the expansion of the lead section. Please let me know your thoughts/comments/suggestions/complaints here. Thanks, Chupper 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Bono fan club ?
I made some perfectly legitimate criticism of the man but they were deleted *even from the talk pages* ! What is this? To re-iterate some people that that it is fair to ask how much a very, very wealthy man really cares about the desperately poor of this world.

Please don't delete this comment. This is only the talk section. I haven't touched the main article.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your criticism? Where's your reliable reference? Remember, wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, i hope your not pushing your own WP:OR. regards Merbabu 10:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Smokey, I removed your comments with this edit. I could care less whether your comments are for or against Bono.  If someone comes here and makes a sarcastic comment stating their thoughts about Bono's actions, it will be removed.  If someone comes here and adds "Wow, Bono is really cool", it will be removed.  As stated above:  "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bono article.  This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."


 * Unless you would like to comment on how the article could be improved, or anything related to the article's progress, please leave your personal opinions to yourself. Chupper 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just think some mention should be made of Bono's vast personal wealth when talking of his great concern for the poor of Africa.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  10:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, please read WP:RS and WP:OR. "I just think" sounds like something one writes in a blog, not an encyclopedia. Merbabu 10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I must apologise. I have just noticed the 'Criticism' section in the article and this makes several of the points I would like to have mentioned like U2's tax evasion in Ireland.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  11:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * SmokeyTheCat is absolute right though. This article sounds like it was put out by Bono's PR people, and not what you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia.  To improve the article, is there anyone out there who can give a slightly more neutral and balanced (but still informative) detailed bio of the guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.82.32 (talk • contribs)
 * What specifically is wrong with it in your opinion? --Merbabu 12:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, just for instance the summary at the beggining uses the phrase "influential politicians" which is POV, it presupposes an answer influential to whom and without a source that actually addresses this rather than ones that say he met with politicians it seems unfair, also "criticism due to his activism and involvement with U2" doesn't even make sense, his criticism seems to be related to tax evasion and a personal lack of respect for the law, at least that's the impression I get, (I don't personally care one way or the other, and honestly I don't know all the controversy(69.76.197.156 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC))


 * I've deleted the word "influential". Someone better acquainted with the controversy should rephrase the other sentence.(Thebigbradwolf 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Well, I'm not 100% sure that "influential politician" is POV. Influential means they have influence, which they do.  But I get your point, and it kinda sounds like a, "hey, look who I've talked to" statement.  Now your comment regarding "criticism due to his activism and involvement with U2" stating "his criticism seems to be related to tax evasion and a personal lack of respect for the law, at least that's the impression I get is incorrect.  First, I'm not sure the article states anywhere that he has a lack of respect for the law.  Second, he has never been involved in tax evasion.  Third, his involvment with U2 led to an attack on their vehicle by IRA supporters. Take a look at the U2 section.  That is why the words criticism due to his activism and involvement with U2 are used.Chupper 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "influential" is NPOV. US presidents, policy advisors, senators etc are influential figures.  Discussions on talk pages should be removed if they don't conform to talk page guidelines.  The policy is that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views", and discussions should be limited to properly sourced content issues.  Professor marginalia 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How exactly are you determining that these politicians are influential? If you're claiming all politicians are influential isn't it redundant? It is not NPOV, it's specifically against the section that says "Let the facts speak for themselves". If there IS an objective standard of "influentialness by politicians" it should be cited in the article.  If one of the sources says the politicians are influential, it should be noted by stating in the form "Time Magazine states that Bono has met with influential politicians". If none of these can be satisfied, it should be removed..(Thebigbradwolf 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Good point, you are correct - a source would have to say so. But again, I'm not pushing the influential thing, I already agree with you Thebigbradwolf - Its probably better not to include it. Chupper 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll say I was mistaken on "disrespect for the law" it seems after more reading that it's his use of tax shelters (which are legal), cursing, and I'm not sure what exactly the criticism is about africa, it just seems people don't like him donating time/money Africa. It still seems to me that the sentence in the opening implies he is somehow a liability to U2.  (Thebigbradwolf 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Re: word "Influential" and the "fan club" issue. Influential is a peacock term to be watchful of.  But to be balanced, even the most cursory skim of this subject shows Bono has had conference with two presidents of the US, two Prime Ministers of the UK, the United Nations Secretary-General, at least one PM of Canada, one president of France, former president of South Africa, the Catholic Pope, etc.  I think Bono sounds more like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man if each one of them is listed accurately and exhaustively.  To satisfy the call to "let the facts speak for themselves", Bono with his bona fides starts to appear to be more successful in earning audience with the world's most influential leaders than majority of the actual heads of state in the world have been.  Editors have to make a call here.  List them all even if by doing so it sounds like Infomercial sales promotion?  Or collapse the assorted bunch into some kind of adjective and get on exemplifying the adjective in the article with the most significant details.Professor marginalia 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not the only two options, they could be grouped into objective groups e.g.:
 * "Bono has met with many incumbent politicians and religious figures" or
 * "Bono has met with many heads of state and church"
 * While I personally find these figures "influential", I somehow doubt a Tibetan Buddhist finds the Catholic Pope influential, or any of the mentioned politicians any more than you would find the Dalia Lama influential. I just don't find "I can't think of a better way to keep it short" as good reasoning...(Thebigbradwolf (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Combining references
As I'm going through the article I noticed many of the references have been combined into one. If at all possible, please avoid this in the future. I know it may seem silly to include several references after one sentence or have references after each word, but it causes some problems if its not left to a normal usage. Here's why: Thanks, and if you have any comments re: this, feel free to leave them here. I'll be splitting the references I find back out because I need many of them for the lead section. Chupper 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If a source is used, and it needs to be repeated, it can't be used when the references are combined. If they were repeated, then references not actually being used would be listed for data, and we would be referencing material with something that is not actually a reference.
 * 2) There are duplicate references listed in the notes section. I may have Bono on Bono in one reference, and then have it listed in two other references because they have been combined.
 * 3) The inline cite count is inaccurate for the article.
 * 4) If multiple sources are in fact being used, they are probably being used for a reason, and the reader can see this. For example, if multiple facts are references with multiple sources, then you might have more than one inline cite.  Or if something is controversial, more than one source may be used.

Failed Good Article Nomination
There's a lot of high-quality information, here. Most of the problem revolves around how the facts are presented, and the tone of the prose:


 * The overall tenor is pretty colloquial. Short paragraphs like "In early 2005, Bono, his wife Ali Hewson, and New York-based Irish fashion designer Rogan Gregory launched the socially conscious line EDUN in an attempt to shift the focus in Africa from aid to trade. EDUN's goal is to use factories in Africa, South America, and India that provide fair wages to workers and practice good business ethics to create a business model that will encourage investment in developing nations." could be reworded. The last sentence is grammatically incorrect, and sounds awkward.
 * "In 1976, Bono responded to an advertisement by fellow student Larry Mullen, Jr. to form a rock band, as did The Edge (David Howell Evans), Dick Evans, and Adam Clayton. After Dick (nicknamed 'Dik') Evans left the group, the remaining four officially changed the name from "The Hype" to "U2"." Run-on. Could be shortened and less beat-around-the-bushy.
 * "[I have] very sensitive eyes to light. If somebody takes my photograph, I will see the flash for the rest of the day. My right eye swells up. I've a blockage there, so that my eyes go red a lot. So it's part vanity, it's part privacy, and part sensitivity." should use the C-quote format.
 * A good amount of expansion is needed, such as Bono's musical influences, his early biography, and more some information about his history with U2.

Overall, it's the lack of comprehensiveness that keeps the article just below GA status. Once this has been addressed, it can be resubmitted for review. NSR 77 T C  00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful recommendations. I've added your suggestions to the "to do list" on this page.  We'll see if we can't get to work on them.  I must admit - I wasn't expecting a pass, I was just hoping for more peer reviewing, as our peer review at WP:Biography wasn't moving along tremendously fast. :) Thanks again, Chupper 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Forbes investment
I have relocated the recently added content about the Forbes investment from "Criticism" to "Other endeavors". In none of the three refs given was Bono criticized for such--the text has been rewritten to conform to the references. There was also no verification in references given that Bono was the "mastermind" behind the investment. Refs indicate that Bono was not involved in meetings, and at most was credited with "driving" the part of the discussion regarding the magazine's transition to internet related media. No editorializing is allowed to editors here. Editors, please stick faithfully to the content in the sources.Professor marginalia 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, and thanks for checking on that! I know references aren't always verified and its good when we get folks who check what editors have written. Chupper 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is he Jewish?
In a article on a chabad news site, there is a story how last week bono put on Teffilin In NY with a Lubavitcher hassid, and he told him his mother was Jewish. Is that true? THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.249.66 (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Chupper 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? He is Irish - they are one of the most Christian nations in the World, especially at the time he was born - it is actually surprising enough his mother was a Protestant, considering how overwelmingly Catholic ireland is. Why the hell does it seem like everybody has some Jewish link? Fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.224.18 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? There are plenty of Irish Jews. Bono has mentioned several times that he has been told that his ancestors on his mother's side were Jewish...though, he is not Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HillaryF (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Depending on technicalities, such as if they were orthodox or liberal jews, then in essence, Bono could technically be classified as Jewish. I am not saying he definitely would be, but as in both circles being classified as Jewish would go by the matriarchal side (and in the case of liberal, patriarchal too), so depending on what type and who on his mother's side was Jewish, he could very well be classified as such. 86.140.87.118 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, please; there is no need to start pointing fingers and calling names. There is a difference between the beliefs/traditions of Bono and the beliefs/traditions of his maternal ancestors. Personally, I would recommend saying that he is a Christian from partially Jewish backgrounds, or something similar. PhoenixFeather111 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bono clearly doesn't consider himself Jewish - I don't think we're arguing that point. But, in the band autobiography, U2byU2, Bono says about the Rankins (his mother's family):
 * ''...from the Rankins - which by the way is a usually a Jewish name. They all looked Jewish too. I've heard it said that the Rankins were Jewish at one point when they were based in Scotland, then they came over to Ireland and they weren't Jewish anymore, which I think used to happen a lot. I don't know if that is true, but I'd like it if it were."
 * From memory, that is the only mention in the book of possible Jewish ancestry. --Merbabu (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First line of article
Surely Bono's birth name should be included in the first line of the article, rather than being relegated to the info box at the side.

For people with stage names/pseudonyms etc., the convention tends to be 'X was born Y in...'.

The article should begine something like "Bono was born Paul David Hewson in..." or "Bono (born Paul David Hewson) was raised in...".

It just seems too important a detail not to include at the start. Also, Bono is a name he was given later in life - when he was born he was called Paul David Hewson!

Personally that was the reason I came to the article, as I didn't know what his real name was. It took me ages to find this importnat fact!

What do people think?

Randomsoup 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Randomsoup, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like part of the lead got destroyed during the vandalism and reverts.  I've restored the original lead. Chupper 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That reads much better now. :-) Randomsoup 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

reverted SP reference
Someone reverted my addition to the article concerning the South Park episode More Crap, citing "not encyclopedic", despite the fact that adding a South Park reference was on the To-do list (which is what I was acting on in the first place). Is there any discussion that can be had on this?


 * Sorry, forgot to sign Toad of Steel 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I put it back. If the episode itself merits a page, then it should be noted in the criticism section. Murcielago 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like South Park, but it isn't encyclopedic, and it violates WP:BLP. Please keep the fanboy trivia out. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which part of WP:BLP does it violate? The only thing I can see is that it possibly violates within WP:BLP is that it may not be NPOV, in which case it should be reworded, not removed completely. Toad of Steel 12:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. The fact that this is even an issue that I have to respond to makes me want to stop editing Wikipedia...


 * Anyway, Toad of Steel, if you honestly added in the reference to south park because it was on the to-do list, I apologize. That should have never been put on the to do list.  The addition of that reference is unencyclopedic, non-notable, and violates WP:BLP.  Lets take a quick look - "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."


 * This material does not belong here. Chupper 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In no way is this encyclopedic. It doesn't belong here. Professor marginalia 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yup - get rid of it. --Merbabu 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that it merits a mention in the article if not plot details. It's a high-profile pop culture caricature of the subject in question. Nualran 06:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you disagree with the policy above? You really think Trey Parker's personal opinion on Bono belongs in an encyclopedia? Chupper 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nualran, please re-read: The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources,. How is South Park relevant to Bono's notability? It isn't - whereas, say Rolling Stone magazine commenting on his musicianship, or an economics expert commenting on his Africa work would be relevant to his notability. Just because wikipedia is free to edit and you can add irrelevant pop culture trivia doesn't mean you should add it. --Merbabu 14:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the opinion that South Park put foward shouldn't be put in the article, shouldn't the fact that it was mentioned on South Park to the extent of "Bono was paradied in a South Park episode" linking to the article on the show?(Thebigbradwolf 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. It merits a mention of the episode as a portrayal of Bono, not as Trey Parker's opinion of him. So no, I don't disagree with the policy... but I don't think the policy has any relevance to the discussion. Nualran 22:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with you folks, to a degree. I do feel that policy does very specific relevance to this discussion.  In other words I would see a description of his parody on South Park as not relevant to this article, but I could see a mention of it inserted in this article.  It is my opinion, though, that we should get several other references to him in other TV shows, movies, songs, etc. before putting that on the page.  Maybe we could have a "Public perception and criticism" section which would include the recognition section, the criticism section (maybe with a new title and slightly rewritten), along with a "References in popular culture" subsection.  In other words the setup would be as follows:
 * Public perception and criticism
 * Honors and awards
 * "Criticism" or another title
 * References in popular culture
 * Thoughts? Chupper 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A pop culture section? Please tell me you are not serious. These are the bane of wikipedia and are slowly being removed. It’s just a chance for every bored teenager to create a trivia list of their favourite cartoon, video game, etc. Let’s keep it serious and quality. This is an encyclopaedia, not “fun facts” or a “did you know” section. --Merbabu 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, is a "references in popular culture" a trivia section? Or is there a better way we can do this?  On second thought, parodies themselves aren't encyclopedic, but perhaps society's interpretations are.  Are there other ways we can show popular culture's views of Bono?  Should we even do that?  Are we doing that already? Chupper 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * the impact that Bono has had, (e.g being potrayed as a South Park character is very important. It is a cultural reference, with is validated by the opinions of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Trivia is integrated by the opinions of editors, and do not neccesarily provide sources, while connections to culture and media are provided by references, such as the primary source of SouthParkStudios. We already had this discussion in the Talk Page of The China Probrem and we were told by User:Nightscream (admin) was that cultural references that have been voiced by Trey Parker is essential to understanding the person being protayed and information of this sort is vital to the individual's article and the article of the episode being professed on Wikipedia. So it does belong in this article --J miester25 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So we should add in a reference to a South Park episode which is about Bono. I'll add it in, but does anyone have a preference on a certain place? This can't be the only criticism of Bono. I feel like there should be a "Criticism" section in there, and the South Park episode would go under there. Thoughts? -  Bagel7  T's 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Article reporting Bono's negative charity influence
I don't know how to edit this one... http://www.nme.com/news/bono/32704 Can someone who knows how to edit please include this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.3.7 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2007

Specify his kids sex; Jordan Hewson is a girl
" Ali and Bono have four children : daughter Jordan and Memphis Eve; sons Elijah Bob Patricius and John Abraham "

How about add : "have 4 kids: daughters Jordan & Memphis; sons Elijah and John". Jordan has become unisex so I think it should be specified. 70.108.126.66 (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?
There is no reason for this. Wikipedia is supposed to be able to be edited by everyone. Good day. Dennis-from-accounts 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Check article old ID's 168213875 through 161746591 and maybe you can answer your own question. Chupper 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't fully protected, just semi-protected. Full protection prevents everyone except a sysop from editing.  Semi-protection only prevents IP addresses and accounts less than three days old from editing. MelicansMatkin 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to edit the article. 1. South Park? Why is there no reference? 2. There is more criticism, please can we include some more? 3. Perhaps we can lock all of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.167.174 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) There is no need for the "South Park" reference; this has already been thoroughly discussed above.
 * 2) If you can properly source it
 * 3) Pages are only protected to deal with one of two things: persisitant vandalism, and edit wars. Very few pages are actually semi-protected, and even fewer are fully-protected. If people didn't vandalize or edit-war, there would be no need for any page to be protected at all. MelicansMatkin 19:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey wow.. I can edit now... Thank you to whoever. Can the Bono Fan club please go away and let us people say bad things about Bono? There is so much mention of all his awards yet any criticism is quickly removed. Go and make a "we love Bono" page somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.167.174 (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection was removed because it had expired. You may not "say bad things about Bono". You may add properly sourced information to the appropriate section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a fan club and not a hate club either. MelicansMatkin 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go... What was wrong with the nme article? I put the ref tags in? Would someone be so kind as to explain rather than head into a revert/edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.82.189 (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go... Maybe you can point to the specific edit you are talking about? Do you have a link to the specific change you made?  I've tried to find the edit you are talking about, but all I could find were edits adding "Bono is a fag" or "Bono tastes good in my mouth" or "Could you fix that for me biatch".  On another note - we may need semi protection again. Chupper (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just put it back, please can you provide some sort of feedback as to what is wrong with it if people feel it should be deleted. People putting "bono is a fag" etc. is just as disruptive as some members of the fan club.

November 2007 The charities which Bono is involved with was criticized by Jobs Selasie head of the charity African Aid Action. Selasie claims that the actions of the charities which Bono is involved with has increased corruption and dependency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.82.189 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it is talking about the charities that Bono is involved in, not Bono himself. I deemed it irrelevent for this article.  Just because he supports a charity that has been criticized does not make it criticism directed towards Bono. Its irrelevent to this particular article, and would be better suited on the Wikipedia pages for those specific charities. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and at least warrants a mention so as to show that the criticism which Bono is receiving is not isolated to Paul Theroux. Thanks to whoever cleaned it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.82.189 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is now phrased so that the criticism is applicable to Bono, as well as now giving a reason why. I currently see no reason to remove it.  However, the section is certainly not isolated to Paul Theroux at the moment; many other criticism's are also present.  I'm not sure what your intended meaning was with that statement. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant criticism in relation to the "Humanitarian" work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.82.189 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

His religious beliefs
I got some interesting quotes from a 2005 interview which I read in a book collection of Rolling Stones interviews with various celebrities. He seems to be some kind of nondenominational Christian. I've included part of this excerpt in the article, but I'm putting more of it here:

"If I could put it simply, I would say that I believe there's a force of love and logic in the world, a force of love and logic behind the universe. And I believe in the poetic genius of a creator who would choose to express such unfathomable power as a child born in 'straw poverty'; i.e., the story of Christ makes sense to me.

"As an artist, I see the poetry of it. It's so brilliant. That this scale of creation, and the unfathomable universe, should describe itself in such vulnerability, as a child. That is mind-blowing to me. I guess that would make me a Christian. Although I don't use the label, because it is so very hard to live up to. I feel like I'm the worst example of it, so I just kinda keep my mouth shut.

"I try to take time out of every day, in prayer and meditation. I feel as at home in a Catholic cathedral as in a revival tent. I also have enormous respect for my friends who are atheists, most of whom are, and the courage it takes not to believe."

[The Bible:] "It sustains me."

"I don't read it as a historical book. I don't read it as, 'Well, that's good advice.' I let it speak to me in other ways. They call it the rhema. It's a hard word to translate from Greek, but it sort of means it changes in the moment you're in. It seems to do that for me.

"It's a plumb line for me. In the Scriptures, it is self-described as a clear pool that you can see yourself in, to see where you're at, if you're still enough. I'm writing a poem at the moment called 'The Pilgrim and His Lack of Progress.' I'm not sure I'm the best advertisement for this stuff." (pp. 464-6) marbeh raglaim (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of bono
Since it is a nickname, it deserves a Pronunciation. But since its in the first sentence I need approval. AntiVanMan (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with adding it. Don't feel obligated that you need approval - I would just bring it up here before making the change - and only if people don't like it - then we can discuss it. Chupper (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Antichrist allegations
Would it be appropriate to mention the spreading questions re Bono's role in fulfillment of prophesy?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.168.46 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think its worth mentioning, and looks like an interpretation and a misprint. Bono doesn't say Jesus, Jew, Muhammad all true, he says Jesus, Jew, Muhammed its true - all sons of Abraham.  He isn't point to the fact that we have one unified religion.  He is saying that a lot of muslims, christians and jews are all pissed at each other and its leading to war - but we should be peaceful because we are all brothers.  This is part of his anti-war rhetoric that U2's been spitting out since the 80s. Chupper (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This May Be Helpful
I am currently writing a research paper on Bono and U2's rise to stardom. I have decided not to add this part of my paper to the main Bono page, but to paste it here for the people working on the article to tweak it so it fits in with the rest. If you think that some of it will work, please post a message on my talk page. Thanks!

U2’s first big break came when they won a talent show and a record deal with CBS Records. They released their first single, called “U2:3”, which topped the national charts in Ireland. In December that year, they for the first time released their music overseas, but without much success. Finally, after releasing another Irish-only chart topping single, they managed a record deal with Island Records. Bono’s lyrics dealt with topics such as faith, spirituality, and death, which were subjects often avoided by most seasoned rock bands. The first album the band released was called Boy, and its success managed to capture attention overseas and begin to build a strong fan base in Europe and the United States. U2’s second album, October, expressed many Christian views and ideas that not all members of the band agreed with. After nearly giving up on U2, the band, in 1983, released the album War, which included the band’s first true international hit, “New Year’s Day”.

War was a major turning point for Bono’s songwriting; it featured some of his most aggressive and powerful lyrics. In “Sunday, Bloody Sunday”, Bono wrote about the killings in Northern Ireland on Bloody Sunday in 1887. After releasing the albums Under a Blood-red Sky and The Unforgettable Fire, U2 finally, in 1987, released its biggest album to date, The Joshua Tree. “With or Without You” and “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” topped international charts in the U.K. and the U.S. The album tour sold out around the world. U2 had, in ten years since its first single, become the most popular band in the world.

Chiefsfan (Reply) 02:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

External link to ZotFish?
Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for Bono?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers, but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable.

Zotman (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The site violates WP:ELNO and WP:NOT, and it does not enhance the article. It should not be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section removed
I never read the origional, I just know there was one and it was removed. It doesn't matter if the content was erased for ill reasons or other, I trust the judgement of the vast amount of editors working on this page. However, I do feel that his recent media criticism for his controversial apology on behalf of the Irish belongs in this page. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Major Doubt
I doubt Bono was born in Glasnevin. He lived there. There is a difference. 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.110.186 (talk)

name
Bono Vox Benefit voice? Bona Vox Good Voice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.209.84 (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

More Criticism
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/news-gossip/bonos-friendship-with-war-criminals-makes-me-cringe-1587158.html

Can someone from the fanclub please incorporate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.30.31 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bono to write column for New York Times
'Bono writes New York Times column

U2 frontman Bono will write an opinion column for The New York Times, the paper has announced. The 48-year-old singer's first column, for which he will also record a podcast, will appear on Sunday. He said it would be "an honour" but warned that he had "never been great with the full stops or commas". Times page editor Andrew Rosenthal said Bono was "an extraordinary man who thinks deeply about his art and the major issues confronting the world." The paper said Bono's column would cover a diverse range of topics. The singer is well known for campaigning against debt for the world's poorest countries and for the improvement of trade relations between Africa and the rest of the world. Last year, he received an honorary degree at Japan's Keio University for his work in the fight against poverty and Aids in Africa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7822080.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.106.211 (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you pronounce the name??
I always assumed the name was pronounced "bone-oh" but I've heard other people pronounce it "bahn-oh". How does he pronounce it? And could you put it in the main article, either under the Introduction or in the Trivia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.145.150 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pronounced "Bono". --Merbabu (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here precisely to find this out, too. I am an old geezer who was a big fan of Sonny and the 1960s/1970s Cher but know next to nothing about U2 except that this guy is a member of that group. I naturally thought the name Bono was pronounced like Sonny's last name. But when I finally started paying attention, I heard a pronunciation that brought more to my mind Bonomo's Turkish Taffy than Sonny and Cher. RSLitman (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pronounced "bon" (as in French for good) "oh" (as in the letter): bon-oh. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lean on Me (song)
Was unable to add this to the article regarding Bono's collaboration with the following:

The Nu Nation Project was released in 1998.[5] The first single, an interpolation of the Bill Withers song "Lean on Me", controversially featured several mainstream artists, including R. Kelly, Mary J. Blige and Bono of U2. Together with Crystal Lewis, and the Family, "Lean On Me" and the second single "Revolution" (featuring Rodney Jerkins) were considerable hits, and the album contained a version of another Withers song "Gonna Be a Lovely Day". The Nu Nation Project went on to top the Billboard Contemporary Christian Albums chart for 23 weeks and the Billboard Gospel Albums chart for 49 weeks, and brought Franklin his third Grammy. 69.129.170.102 (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC) 69.129.170.102 (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Even More Criticism
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/magazine/22wwln-q4-t.html?ref=books

Anyone from the fanclub/lobby group/whatever you call yourselves, care to comment why bono is protected? and why these criticisms are not put in? Maybe I should be looking for more awards to add to what is stated already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.31.29 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is semi-protected due to excessive vandalism from people who have nothing better to do than change Bono to Boner, blank large portions of content, and remove valid and cited information. There are several criticisms in the article; if you do not feel it is evenly balanced it is likely because the content was not cited and got removed (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR), or was simply a troll who decided to vent their feelings about Bono, whatever those may be (WP:BIO, WP:BIAS). To quote from the very first header at the top of this page, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." If you know of material that can be added and verifiably cited from a reliable source, then create yourself an account and do it.
 * And I warn you, calling hard-working editors members of a "fanclub" or "lobby group" is not conducive to a good editing relationship, as it was clearly meant in a derogatory way. WP:CIVIL. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the WARNING!, a simple please would be a little more polite and civil. I can't figure out how to edit the page, the padlock at the top has vanished. I have tried creating an account and still I can't do anything, perhaps there is a usability issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.31.29 (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you create the account sucessfully (your response was submitted under your IP address)? It may be that you need to confirm the account creation or log in. Also, because semi-protection only allows "established" editors to edit, I believe that there is a waiting period in between account creation and editing on a semi-protected article (I think it's either 3 or 5 days, but I'm not enetirely sure which). Also, there were actually a lot more criticisms in the article than it originally appeared; they were in either the wrong section or put in as a critical response under Humanitarian work. In both cases I have moved it to the correct section, which makes it roughly the same length as Recognition.
 * However, having read the interview you linked to above, I don't think it necessarily has a place in this article. My reasoning behind this is that there is no specific criticism of Bono, giving him only the briefest mention and incorrectly implying that he looks for Western aid (ie. giving money to Africa) when in fact what Bono argues for is debt-relief (cancelling debts so that nations can make a fresh start and do what China did) and investment in production and transportation of cheap medicine that saves people from problems such as HIV. It is a common misconception about Bono, but the critique is not relevant to what he actually campaigns for. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks to melicans for the thorough, "polite" and thoughtful response. I endorse his comments. I also add that the T in Bono's organization "DATA" stands for trade, an issue discussed in the reference provided by our anon poster. --Merbabu (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section
A separate criticism section is a really poor idea, and should not have been allowed in. Sure, if there is *notable* opinion (although, everyone has an opinion), then can be woven into the relevant section, but as a stand alone section, it is a POV nightmare. These sections should be removed/merged from any wikipedia articles. They easily become a dumping ground for any journalist’s opinion. We once had a criticism section in this article but we successfully merged all the notable “criticism” into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see your point. But then, couldn't the same be said about the "Recognition" section? In any case I'll remerge the criticism to where it fits best, but it's something to consider. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point too. My recommendation for both those sections is to weed out anything that is not overly notable (yes, that will be contentious!!) and integrate the remainder of both sections into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've remerged the criticism into the main article, trying to keep it as chronical as possible and seperating it under "U2" and "Humanitarian work" where applicable. It mostly involved looking at the copyedit I did a few days ago, so it didn't take too long to put it all back in place. I'm a little stumped about where to put some of the "Recognition" though; my concern is that these sections will become far too long, which will hinder us in a push for GA and FA. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a fair bit of that recognition stuff could go. In the next day or so I could work on merging the remaining info into the relevant sections of the article. I can also look at those references you asked about. --Merbabu (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta; I must admit that I've got a lot coming up and so I won't be editing quite as much as I'd like over the next week or so. I agree that a lot can be culled from this; we may need to look at removing some of the more irrelevant criticisms as well (though that will also undoubtedly be contentious). MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I added the criticism section. Can you please explain clearly why you think the article should record recognition as a separate section, but that it should not record criticism as a separate section? If you can't explain this, please reinstate the criticism section.MMc (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote from directly above: A separate criticism section is a really poor idea, and should not have been allowed in. Sure, if there is *notable* opinion (although, everyone has an opinion), then can be woven into the relevant section, but as a stand alone section, it is a POV nightmare. These sections should be removed/merged from any wikipedia articles. They easily become a dumping ground for any journalist’s opinion. We once had a criticism section in this article but we successfully merged all the notable “criticism” into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see your point. But then, couldn't the same be said about the "Recognition" section? In any case I'll remerge the criticism to where it fits best, but it's something to consider. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * You have a point too. My recommendation for both those sections is to weed out anything that is not overly notable (yes, that will be contentious!!) and integrate the remainder of both sections into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)"
 * In other words, there were sections for both, but it was decided to merge them into the main article because there is too much potential for them to becom POV oriented (see WP:NPOV); the IP address above noted as such. The criticism has already been merged back into the article where applicable, and the Recognition section will soon be merged too, it just hasn't been yet because we've been too busy. It's only been a day since it was merged, so no need to worry. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think you're completely wrong - there's no problem with having recognition & criticism sections for publc figures - most of them have them - see for example articles on George Bush or Tony Blair. If someone receives honours or commendations it should be recorded, and so it should be if they are criticised.  What exactly is the problem with this? (your non-explations above, that it is "a really poor idea" or "a POV nightmare" don't constitute an argument).

And why should Bono be different than most of the other bios on this site? MMc (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * MMc, nobody is preventing you from re-creating the the section. All the information is present in the article, so you can go ahead and do it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bono's education
What kind of education does Bono have? I didn't found it out from the article. Thank you 83.149.10.191 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bono attended Mount Temple Comprehensive School" - it's there, twice, and I assume that's where it ended, since I've never heard of him attending college or university. -- Rodhull andemu  20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just that school?.. I wasted 5 years learning politology and I'm still not a millionaire, goddamn it! 83.149.9.87 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever "politology" is, I doubt Bono's education had much to do with his financial success. Sometimes talent transcends formal education ("He will never amount to much"; a teacher of Albert Einstein). -- Rodhull andemu  21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bono falsely matriculated into uni/college but this was cancelled as he didn't pass Irish at school (or something like that). If that is not in the article I will find a ref and add it - or someone else can. --Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nominations
I think the mentions of the Nobel Peace Prize nominations should be removed. Anyone (e.g. a history professor somewhere) can nominate anyone for this prize; see Nobel Peace Prize. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were all nominated, for example; and saying someone has been a nominee isn't particularly special and doesn't give the nominee any special standing. Tempshill (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it needs a citation. The Nobel Prize article mentions that nomination records are sealed for 50 years, so there probably isn't any official record of him being nominated.  Whose word are we taking for this? --Anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.155.70 (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there are three references for the nomination, so all you need to do is look at those for your answer, "Anon". MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops - didn't see the citations at the end of the sentence. (Only the first one mentions the Nobel nomination: it explains that nominators sometimes reveal who they nominated, although it doesn't say who did so in this case.) --121.45.155.70 (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

?
Why no mention of Bono being the worlds biggest turd? It was revealed in a episode of South Park. We should at least mention the episode as I can remember Bono was mad about the incident. [] LifeStroke420 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is a serious comment, then, there are many reasons why this should not go into the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, for one. "It was revealed" sounds like journalism of the worst kind, and should be avoided in stylistic terms, and that's without infringing WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. This is not a notable "award", and I see no reason even to mention it, let alone Bono's reaction. I'm sure there's a website somewhere that accepts this sort of thing, but I doubt this is it. Rodhull  andemu  17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I am assuming judging from your comment you have not seen the episode in question and you have no clue of which I speak. Please allow me to explain: It was a revealed in a episode of SP that Bono is in fact the worlds biggest crap taken by a guy. Bono, upon episodes release, was furious. Thus the controversy should be mentioned.LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * South Park is a fictional TV show. It doesn't "reveal" anything, it satirizes the world. A prior consensus has been reached that mentioning the episode would be irrelevant, and the appearances on The Simpsons and Family Guy are also not mentioned. Why should this one be any different? I have seen no source regarding Bono's reaction following the episode, and you have not provided one. Give us a reliable source regarding Bono's reaction; otherwise it is a moot point. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While SOME of south park is fictional I highly doubt this part is. Do you have proof its not? And the fact of the matter is the Simpsons and FG refs should be there to.LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, so you actually think that Bono was born as the result of a defecation and his father continues to nurture him to this present day, despite the fact that he has been dead since 2001?
 * This discussion is over. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for you it is but your not the king of wikipedia and I was not directly asking YOU you put your two cents in now lets see if any one agrees with ME.LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By posting on this talk page with your question you invited me to respond. That you seem to think a fictional and crudely animated TV show has any basis in reality beggars belief and, given your editing history, I am less than inclined to believe that this is a serious question or discussion.
 * I note that you still have yet to provide any sources on the matter.
 * This talk page is a place where serious discussion can be had on how to improve the article and make it the best it can be. Not a place to muse about the realities of South Park. If you really want to do that, go to a forum. But unless you can provide any real and serious reason as to why this is a matter of any importance whatsoever, there is no need for this debate to continue because it will lead nowhere. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This article did not give me the information I wanted.
I came here looking for an account of the criticism of Bono, in relation to his charitable endeavours. I was surprised there wasn't really anything at all, particularly as there's a section on criticism on the Wikipedia article on Bob Geldof. So, I'll go elsewhere for what I need. Just thought you'd like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.106.95 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Seeya. Rodhull  andemu  18:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure that a lot of the readers of this article come here for that very reason. If you feel that you need to go somewhere else than feel free; we won't ever try and stop you. However, I suspect that instead of actually reading the article you only looked for a specific section, and when that section could not be found decided to post here. If you'd actually read the article you would have noticed that there is a lot of criticism interspersed throughout the text. Your loss, not ours. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I'd tell you what I thought of the article, and how it could be improved. I don't really understand how wikipedia works, but I thought you wanted people to tell you what they think would make an article better. What I didn't expect was for the people who write this page to be so rude to people who make comments. I'm sorry if I offended you in some way, but there it is. I don't think I'll do the same thing again, as I don't like (or see the point of) getting into arguments with strangers on the internet. Sorry to have troubled you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.106.95 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In reference to the above: This article seems to mostly note praise of Bono's 'humanitarian work', where as most people think he's a sanctamonious and somewhat hypocritical prick because of his endless whinings while being worth about £75 billion. Certainly the mass media have more ridiculed then praised this.  Ditto Bob Geldoff, Lenny Henry etc.  While this is mentioned, the references to it are generally fairly unspecific and brief.  It is still unbalanced. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the view of "most people" expressed? Or that of the mass media? Rodhull  andemu  17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

These criticisms that there is no balance or Bono criticism are complete rubbish and come from people not reading the article. I've never read the article myself, and it took me all of two seconds to scroll down to the humanitarian work section and find: "On 15 December 2005, Paul Theroux published an op-ed in the New York Times called The Rock Star's Burden (cf. Kipling's The White Man's Burden) that criticized stars such as Bono, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie, labelling them as 'mythomaniacs, people who wish to convince the world of their worth.' Theroux, who lived in Africa as a Peace Corps Volunteer, added that 'the impression that Africa is fatally troubled and can be saved only by outside help — not to mention celebrities and charity concerts — is a destructive and misleading conceit.'[78] Elsewhere, Bono has been criticised, along with other celebrities, for '[ignoring] the legitimate voices of Africa and [turning] a global movement for justice into a grand orgy of narcissistic philanthropy[79]."

"In an article in Bloomberg Markets in March 2007, journalists Richard Tomlinson and Fergal O’Brien noted that Bono used his band's 2006 Vertigo world tour to promote his ONE Campaign while at the same time 'U2 was racking up $389 million in gross ticket receipts, making Vertigo the second-most lucrative tour of all time, according to Billboard magazine. . . . Revenue from the Vertigo tour is funneled through companies that are mostly registered in Ireland and structured to minimize taxes.'[84]"

"Further criticism came in November 2007, when Bono's various charity campaigns were targeted by Jobs Selasie, head of African Aid Action. Selasie claimed that these charities had increased corruption and dependency in Africa because they failed to work with African entrepreneurs and grassroots organizations, and as a result, Africa has become more dependent on international handouts.[85] Bono responded to his critics in Times Online on February 19, 2006, calling them 'cranks carping from the sidelines. A lot of them wouldn’t know what to do if they were on the field. They’re the party who will always be in opposition so they’ll never have to take responsibility for decisions because they know they’ll never be able to implement them.'[86]" To the IP: yes, we welcome input and how to improve, but it's a little annoying if your critiques come from not reading. Wikipedia no longer has wants "Criticism" sections because they are POV, and people, who are always attracted to drama and the negative, tend to read only those elements of the article. A few such section still survive, but criticisms are now weaved in throughout the article under their appropriate topics, to give a fuller, more balanced view. -- >David  Shankbone  17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo
I can't fix this typo because the article is locked, but there are two i's in Bono's kid's middle name: Patricius, not Patricus 76.182.61.207 (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Checked and ✅ Rodhull  andemu  12:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Honorary KBE
I'd like to change his name section to: Paul David Hewson KBE Bono is bestowed an honorary Knight Commander of the British Empire commendation. But since he's not a member/citizen of the British Commonwealth he's not elligible to the Sir that this title normally would allow. If anyone disagrees before July 1st '09 I will not change this. :) Thanks! Mkruijff (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Netrat (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vote. You edit by consensus only and that involves discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the KBE designation after his name implies that it is not an honourary designation, but a full one. If there is an alternate designation we can use instead of just KBE that makes it clear it is an honourary, I would not object. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But where does it say that KBE designation implies that it is not an honourary designation? Actually, Order of the British Empire says quite opposite:

"Honorary knighthoods, given to individuals who are not nationals of a realm where Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State, permit usage of the honour as a post-nominal but not as a title before their name."


 * So can we have "Paul David Hewson KBE" without "Sir" prefix? P.S. It was very counter-productive to just revert my edit without linking to this particular section of the article's talk page. Netrat (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit was a mess. please use preview function when editing public viewable articles. --Merbabu (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I know, my bad. However, I've fixed that as fast as I could. Netrat (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The title "sir" should not go in. Firstly he is not known as such in the same way McCartney is. (is it something to do with him not being a British citizen). Secondly, it's only honorary right? The article can explain all this, but it doesn't need to be in the first sentence. --Merbabu (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)