Talk:U2/Archive 8

Is U2 a Christian rock band?
On the 24, an editor added "Christian rock" to the band's genre field and was reverted twice. The editor also placed the group at List of Christian rock bands, but other editors there are insistent about listing the group, backing up the inclusion with what I feel are tenuous sources. Given it stands to reason that the inclusion of U2 on a list of Christian rock artists should also mean that the band's article should reflect that designation, I feel it's necessary to bring editors at both articles into the discussion. You can few the talk page topic at the Christian rock band page here. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the references that Wesley Dodds failed to supply:
 * Not sure why it matters to this article that it is listed there an in other lists of Christian bands.
 * The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, a book that only discusses Christian music until 2000, has five solid pages on the band. If it were revised to deal with the past decade, I'm sure it would be even longer. That book also defines the a relatively liberal interpretation of what constitutes Christian music: "music that appeals to self-identified fans of contemporary Christian music on account of a perceived connection to what they regard as Christianity". That is the definition used in the list. There is no question that Bono's faith is clearly related through his lyrics and the fact that not all members are believers doesn't seem to be relevant. In fact, many Christian radio stations have played U2 over the years and Christian music retailers have carried their albums as well. The fact that the also have "mainstream" or secular appeal should not overshadow their appeal to Christians. The article itself alludes to this: "often embellished with Christian and spiritual imagery". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are they typically classed as a Christian rock band though? As an aside, as Bart Simpson once said "everybody knows all of the best bands are associated with Satan...." Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question is relevant to addition of material to this article but not in relation to the band's inclusion on the list in question. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to both pages, as one of the questions is the validity of the sources. If U2 is largely agreed to be a Christian rock band, then that's something that needs to be noted in this article, at the very least because if U2 is indeed Christian rock band, then they would be the biggest Christian rock band ever. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I feel more sorry for the dead horse or the stick you're using on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If U2 is indeed a Christian rock band, then it needs to be acknowledged in this article. Simple as that. I don't think they are, but you do. I'm saying you need to follow through on your assertion. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's actually arguing that they are a Christian band? Not Wesley, Walter or I according to this discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I am arguing that they are considered by the Christian music industry as indeed being fringe members. There are references to support that. However, they are not what I would call full members: those who play on exclusively Christian labels and to an exclusively Christian marketplace. Three members are Christian, and most notably, the lyricist is and that makes their message Christian. However, unlike most Christian bands, they discuss their secular lives and so they appeal to a non-Christian marketplace as well. So while there are those consider them to be Christian, there are others who don't consider them to be. They don't sing explicitly about Christian themes so they will never be inducted in the Gospel music hall of fame. They will not be distributed through Christian music channels the way Cliff Richard has been or Switchfoot (reluctantly) are. However, the references are present to support the position, most notably and extensive entry on the band in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. I don't really know what we would write about here though. Three members a believers. OK. That's covered. Some of their music discusses matters of faith. OK. That's covered. They don't consider themselves to be in the Christian music industry. Why would we discuss that? Are we going to discuss the fact that they have been interviewed about their faith in faith-based publications? Go ahead. That they have a length entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music which gathers faith-based information about the band. Feel free to. I feel no need to push that aspect of their life to their primarily secular fan-base. However, if you want this discussion to reflect their entry in the list of Christian rock bands article, you're in the wrong place. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I feel more sorry for the dead horse or the stick you're using on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If U2 is indeed a Christian rock band, then it needs to be acknowledged in this article. Simple as that. I don't think they are, but you do. I'm saying you need to follow through on your assertion. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's actually arguing that they are a Christian band? Not Wesley, Walter or I according to this discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I am arguing that they are considered by the Christian music industry as indeed being fringe members. There are references to support that. However, they are not what I would call full members: those who play on exclusively Christian labels and to an exclusively Christian marketplace. Three members are Christian, and most notably, the lyricist is and that makes their message Christian. However, unlike most Christian bands, they discuss their secular lives and so they appeal to a non-Christian marketplace as well. So while there are those consider them to be Christian, there are others who don't consider them to be. They don't sing explicitly about Christian themes so they will never be inducted in the Gospel music hall of fame. They will not be distributed through Christian music channels the way Cliff Richard has been or Switchfoot (reluctantly) are. However, the references are present to support the position, most notably and extensive entry on the band in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. I don't really know what we would write about here though. Three members a believers. OK. That's covered. Some of their music discusses matters of faith. OK. That's covered. They don't consider themselves to be in the Christian music industry. Why would we discuss that? Are we going to discuss the fact that they have been interviewed about their faith in faith-based publications? Go ahead. That they have a length entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music which gathers faith-based information about the band. Feel free to. I feel no need to push that aspect of their life to their primarily secular fan-base. However, if you want this discussion to reflect their entry in the list of Christian rock bands article, you're in the wrong place. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is required that categorically says that U2 is a Christian band. The fact is that they themselves have said many times that U2 is not a "Christian band". It doesn't matter if some of the individual members identify as having CHristian beliefs, or matters of the spirit are within their lyrics. And it doesn't matter how many references you can find to references that discuss "Christian" themes in their music. --Merbabu (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC) As for the idea that this article needs to match whatever other article, that's nonsense. Consistency is always a nice thing to have, but it is by no means the most important thing. Accuracy for one is more important. Just because dodgy material exists in another article, doesn't mean it has to be rolled without questions into other articles. --21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what I was saying, except the dodgy material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Change in image order is not an improvement
The primary changes were that File:2005-11-21_U2_%40_MSG_by_ZG.JPG and File:U2 Gelsenkirchen August 3rd 2009.png were swapped between the infobox and the instrumentation section. The image currently in the infobox, Gelsenkirchen, does not clearly show drummer Mullen. The image now in the instrumentation section, MSG, does. The composition of the MSG image is much better, with the spacing between the members almost equal while the Gelsenkirchen image shows the three non-drummers grouped together on the left-hand side of the image with a large gap and the drummer, lost in his kit, off on the distant right. Finally, the guitar in the Gelsenkirchen isn't clearly visible. That might make a good argument to exclude it from the instrumentation section, but the reasons given above are a good reason not to use it at all. Since the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears." Since MSG summarizes the information better and is a better composition, it should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As the person who posted the image originally, I am inclined to agree with you, for all the reasons that you outline. I will change it back to the original image and I encourage further discussion before using the swapped image. Wikipedia brown (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation
This is an open invitation to join WikiProject U2! If you would like to collaborate on articles and under this projects scope, you are encouraged to participate!

You may add yourself to our meber list below by clicking here!

Miss Bono (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IRISH BAND?
Surely a claim can be made that 2 of the band are by point of fact English?

Brit-Irish band perhaps ? :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinDibs (talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, Edge was born in Wales but moved to Ireland when he was an infant and probally has no memories of living there. Clayton moved to Ireland when he 5 and stayed ever since. The band was formed in Ireland and its roots are in Ireland and they live mostly in Ireland so how are they not an Irish band? It does not matter where you are born it matters where you grew up and who you identify with. Clearly the lads consider themselves Irish citizens and nationals. Sorry England you can't get all the good bands. Tra3535 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.244.74 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * England alone is not Great Britain, however I don't think that the nation of individual members determines the band's origin. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This shit again? I fought hard for "a band from Dublin, Ireland" but that just pissed off both British and Irish nationalists. --Merbabu (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Their Irish, end of story. And the UK has plenty of good bands. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not Anglo-Irish then? Walter, matey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.231.138 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Manchester. Just because members lived in England doesn't make them an English band. They formed in Ireland which would make them an Irish band. However if you can find a reliable source that says they're an Anglo-Irish band I'll support your claim.
 * Please don't think I'm your mate either. I may be a fellow editor, but taking liberties the way you're doing is close to a personal attack, particularly when it's done in a friendly an unfriendly manner. If you want to keep that IP available for editing, I suggest that you behave like an adult not the way you've been doing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean in an unfriendly manner? It would be tiresome. --Merbabu (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Some striking self-righteousness going on here. It seems perfectly reasonably to me for someone to say that this band is Anglo-Irish since two of its members were born in the UK. It is a matter of discussion whether the band should be termed Irish because they were formed in Ireland. It seems ok to me to do so, but why the unpleasant attitude at this IP? And the term 'matey' is perfectly acceptable, you are being too sensitive. And it looks like you are threatening someone when you say 'if you want to keep that IP available for editing..' Rather childish, we need adult behaviour on Wikipedia.92.24.231.19 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to the individual anon. It's just that it does need a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * O how many places this comes up at, or at least could. O how few realise that "band" is a term for the collective, not the parts of the sum. Are Queen a Zanzibari-English band because of where their lead singer was born? Surely a claim can be made that 1 member of the band is by point of fact Welsh-born-in-London. I would say that 'moved to Dublin at age one' and 'moved to Dublin at age five' hardly speaks to strong personal English ties. If they had decided to move back to the island of their birth when they came of age that would make this an entirely different situation but they decided to stay in Ireland. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 07:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

New material
They released "From The Ground Up". It should be posted. Miss Bono (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who release what? Reference? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was U2 who realeased new material:...... From The Ground Up: U2.com Music Edition brings you the inside track on U2360° - the stories, the photos, the music. Presented in a bespoke, wrap-around sleeve, the large-format hardback book opens to reveal FOUR exclusive lithographs of the band, some very cool bookmarks and Edge's Picks - a limited-edition, 15-track live CD, curated by The Edge. These are the cuts you asked for after our one-off release of U22 and the moment you subscribe (or resubscribe) to U2.com you can also instantly access TEN LIVE DOWNLOADS - FIVE FROM EDGE'S PICKS ( Breathe, New Year's Day, 'I'll Go Crazy', In A LIttle While and "40") AND FIVE BONUS U2360° DOWNLOADS (No Line On The Horizon, Spanish Eyes, Desire, Pride (In The Name Of Love) and Angel of Harlem).//Taken from U2.com, that's my reference. I got something more about it!! Do you want it Miss Bono (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fanclub releases are not important enough to be worth mentioning in an article containing 30 years+ of history. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not take from a fanclub, it was taken from official U2 website. u2.com  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  18:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the U2.com fanclub. Those releases come each year, and are simply not important or noteworthy enough to mention here. The most applicable article for that would be U2 discography. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

New Promotional Tour for U2
Jordi Tardà confirms that the new U2 promotional tour (in 6 countries with 6 concerts in each one) will be named "6x6" in 2014. And then in 2015 they're gonna launch their international tour. It is already a true information NOT rumors. So when we gonna add it to main space?? Miss Bono   (zootalk)  12:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey! I was not posting material for a forum discussion! I was asking when can we add this new information to the main article of U2... and this is the reference    Miss Bono   (zootalk)  16:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference. I know you're an experience editor and I was surprised to see what I perceived as "forum talk" (I know a guy who knows a guy who says that this is going to happen...) so I removed it just to be both fair and safe. I trust that the removal of the content doesn't impinge on your reputation as a stellar editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

New Information for Bono's Article
I've heard that Bono sold his New York duplex in 5.5 million USD. I need more information about that. Can you check out??  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  19:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Green Day again?
As was discussed in Archive 7, template:Infobox musical artist clearly states that "this field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

"This field can include, for example, any of the following:
 * "For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
 * "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
 * "Groups which have spun off from this group
 * "A group from which this group has spun off

"Separate multiple entries with commas.

"The following uses of this field should be avoided:
 * "Association of groups with members' solo careers
 * "Groups with only one member in common
 * "Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
 * "One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
 * "Groups that are merely similar"

The association with Green Day was for a single. That's all. It doesn't qualify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't post that in the infobox of U2, (I read the discussion about that) I was pointing out that it was wrong. Maybe I didn't explain very well. I was asking if I could remove Green Day form the infobox. User:Scsigs was the one who post such information.  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It may not have been your intention, as I know you agree that it shouldn't be there, but you did add it back in. I was just clarifying here per WP:BRD. I wasn't trying to accuse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't remove it because I didn't know whether I was able to do it or not. I don't want to mess things up :(  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  12:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Release Dates
Why does the pattern of the release date of Boy is mm/dd/yyyy but the other albums' are dd/mm /yyyy. What's the right way?  Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 14:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "right way", but usually the date format corresponds to the so-called "nationality" of the article subject. In this case, since U2 is Irish and Ireland uses the dd mm yyy format, U2 articles usually use that format. I'm not sure why Boy has the American date format. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I am going to change it into the Irish format, if you don't mind.  Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Y2Kcrazyjoker4, did you receive this?  Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No I didn't, thanks for showing me that. I will review the blurb and possibly edit it a little bit. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ok Y2Kcrazyjoker4, I have the article in my WL, tell me if you need anything (I know you won't but at leats I tried :P).  Miss Bono  [zootalk] ☆ 17:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sales
I updated U2's sales tally to 170 Million. We have at least two good sources: LiveNation (http://www.livenation.co.uk/artist/u2-tickets) and Spiderman: Turn off the dark (spidermanonbroadway.marvel.com)

Both list U2's sales tally as over 170 Million albums.
 * You have two sources (WP:V).
 * Neither is good (WP:RS). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, the stage play isn't even verifiable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Eh, the first source is LiveNation!! Laurence Dunne (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, but if I am to assume that LiveNation! is known for its fact-checking, which is at the heart of WP:RS, then I'll have to say it's not true. If you mean something else, then please indicate what is meant. While I didn't revert the addition, the other editor held the same opinion. LiveNation! is not a WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It reappears today added by a new editor. Murry1975 (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Ordinary Love"
Should the info about the song be under the No Line on the Horizon, U2 360° Tour and thirteenth studio album (2006–present) section even though we don't know if it's going to be in their upcoming album? Should it go under the Other projects section instead? Ultra Viole t Ligh t 22:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Bono and Edge
I am hoping our IP friend can come here and discuss his or her assertion that we should use their actual names rather than Edge and Bono. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As per common usage and MOS guidelines, we should, and always have gone by what they are better know as. Murry1975 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its time for me to log off, before I say something impolite. Have fun. Murry1975 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(S)he has been reported for edit warring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies have crept in
I don't think it's intentional, but, possibly because of constant editing and improvement, some facts have become distorted and contradictory. For example: The article states that, in 1980, "The album  included the band's first United States hit single, "I Will Follow"." However, in 1983, "... first single , "New Year's Day", was the band's first hit outside Ireland or the UK." These can't both be true, and possibly neither is, as a look at the discography shows three previous top 20 singles in the States. I think maybe someone with a good knowledge of the band (which rules out Eamon Dunphy! ;-) ) should take a read through and maybe rewrite chunks. I didn't follow them closely enough myself, unfortunately. Pollythewasp (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"The Edge" or "the Edge" in running prose?
Please express your thoughts at the RFC: Talk:The Edge

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Edge's timbrally varied guitar sounds and Bono's expressive vocals"
I think this statement should be removed. It especially doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.

1. It's an uncited opinion. 2. It's clearly non-neutral, written by a fan using laudatory wording. 3. It doesn't differentiate the band in anyway. Timbrally varied doesn't mean anything except that the guitars sound different some time than other times. Music is a form of expression, so referring to vocals as expressive is meaningless.

I deleted this statement on Thursday 9/11/14, and it's back. If there's a good reason to keep this statement in the top paragraph please explain it to me.

64.197.113.1 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement was previously written as "Edge's textural approach to guitar playing" (or something close). Someone objected that it was not accurate (e.g. textural as a word was being misused) and then it was changed to the version above. I disagree about removing the statement, particularly the part about Bono's vocals. I think it can be rephrased to describe the band's anthemic sound, Edge's trademark chiming guitar sound, and Bono's belting vocals - whether in those exact words is up for discussion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

U Talkin U2 To Me?
Should there be some mention of the comprehensive and encyclopedic compendium of all things U2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:2800:8a8:58cf:4630:ef5c:66e4 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it. If another reliable source discussed it at length, it could be mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Christian rock
Sources There are several sources that attest to U2 being a Christian rock band. Citing them as such is consistent with WP:V. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And plenty of sources would dispute that. There's never been a consensus that the band is "Christian rock" - maybe a rock band made of Christians. Heck, if you read down further in the article you cite as a reference, it says "Much of the confusion around U2’s faith stems from the fact that they’ve never been an 'officially' Christian rock band." Not sure how you can cite an article that waffles between saying the band is and isn't a "Christian rock" band. Their music has also been very open to interpretation due to Bono's lyrics often being non-specific and using platitudes, so it seems to me many interpret them in Christian contexts due to their relationship with Christianity. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 11:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not seen many to dispute that. To many pundits there's not difference between a Christian rock band and a rock band made of Christians. It's the definition used by The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music and several of the publications in the "industry" such as CCM Magazine (who have reviewed their albums in the past). I don't know if I would include it in the infobox, but that's not the question here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Categories For that matter, when was the last time anyone referred to U2 as a post-punk band? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think of including them as a Christian rock band? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not part of the Christian music industry, that's clear. They're Christians who make music. We list them at the list of Christian rock bands, but since there's no major section on it in the article, I wouldn't feel right adding it to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The New York source says they are "semi-secretly" Christian rock, and it continues in this waffle-y vein. The New Yorker links to a piece in Christianity Today titled "Bono's Thin Ecclesiology" which describes how weak is the argument that Bono is a devout Christian. The great mass of music critics don't raise this issue because it is not significant. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is fair. The issue is certainly not significant as far as the music media is concerned in 2014. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Biggest Band in the World title is inappropriate.
First, U2 becoming the biggest band in the world is not really true. They were probably called the best band in terms of critical success but in terms of mainstream success not really, you had bands like Bon Jovi, Guns N Roses, Def Leppard and more. Guns N Roses Appetite For Destruction outsold The Joshua Tree in the U.S. and also worldwide. Guns N Roses had more singles than U2. Also, Rattle and Hum wasn't really all that mainstream, U2 was probably the biggest band in Europe but not in the world and especially not in North America. I want somebody to revert that edit, there were probably the best critical band or best band but easily not the biggest or not the most mainstream at all. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be appropriate with prose, particularly with references, but not in a heading. I have removed until a decision is made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Is an irrefutable fact that they were the biggest. The Police's frontman has said it and even the critics did. It's something that shouldn't be explained because the facts are laid out. Heck read the last 2-3 sentences on The Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum section where Larry says that they were the biggest but not the greatest. That contracticts your reverting and corresponds with the heading. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change the fact that you're in an edit war and are about to break the three revert rule. The phrase is not supported by neutral, secondary source only the "We were the biggest, but we weren't the best", quote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz because it says, they were the biggest band in the world from 1986-1989 but when you look at it, it sounds silly. U2 were not the biggest band in the world in 1986, 1988 and 1989, maybe 1987, maybe in Europe but not in the whole world. Especially in a time ruled by hair metal acts. U2 was probably the biggest in Europe but not in the whole world especially when they got outsold by a few hair metal artists in the late 80s in North America. I think that title should be in the section and not in the heading because there is no way U2 was the biggest band in the world in 1986, 1988 or 1989. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I could see what you're coming from, but let's not get carried away with the whole edit war and let's focus on the subject at hand. First of all, that quote satisfies the needs. Also, take a look at this http://www.atu2.com/band/bio.html "Even TIME magazine put U2 on its cover, declaring the band 'Rock's Hottest Ticket.' The Joshua Tree tour sold out stadiums around the world. U2 had become the biggest band in the world." That's another source, you could count the Time magazine's 'Rock's Hottest Ticket` phrase as another source that contributes to the "biggest band in the world," heading. I would agree this is seems debatable, not sure why are you knocking it down so quickly without seeing that the facts are there. In fact is incredulously that the title is not there yet. Let me show you another source. http://www.kristiangoddard.net/Blog/JoshuaTree.htm "Considering the fact that U2 were the biggest band in the world in 1987, the sound of The Joshua Tree is perplexing in many ways." That's coming straight out of that source. So all these quotes back up the heading, I just don't see it "inappropriate," the fact that the heading is not there is what's "inappropriate." Considering that the Larry source and all of these sources support the claim. Correctingsection0062|talk

Also, one more thing I couldn't believe I missed it. But seeing Mikeis1996's contributions I spotted that he/she  added "The Biggest Band in the World" on Bon Jovi's page. I reverted that back then because there was no valuable sources to back up the claim. It seems here that we have a hair metal fan that want to acquire the title on Bon Jovi's page. Notice how he says the heading here is "inappropriate" but according to him it was totally appropriate on the Bon Jovi's page???? Correctingsection0062|talk
 * Regardless of how true it may or may no be, it's not an encyclopedic statement to have in an article, let alone a section title. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But bands like Led Zeppelin and The Police have it on their page, with valuable sources. Correctingsection0062|talk

A band like U2 have always been called the biggest band in the world for some time now. But if there was one time period that really define and commenced it all was the age of The Joshua Tree. It's kinda silly how there are plenty of sources out there but the title is still nowhere to be seen in one of the band's sections. I'm not looking for a quick compromise but I believe that if the valuable sources are out there and if it's something that has been around for years then it should be on Wikipedia.Correctingsection0062|talk — Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I am not that into hair metal, but there were a lot of bands in the 80s, there were a couple of successful hair metal bands that were probably more successful than U2. Also, the biggest band in the world shouldn't be a heading, it should be in the sections due to U2 having three years from 1986-1989. U2 wasn't even the biggest band in the world in 1986, 1988 or 1989, maybe in 1987, maybe in Europe but not in 1986, 1988 or 1989. Also, as for Bon Jovi becoming the biggest band in the world, it could probably be true. Slippery When Wet was the top selling album of 1987, Bon Jovi kept their success more in 1988 and 1989 because of New Jersey. U2 Rattle and Hum didn't even outsold New Jersey by Bon Jovi. But, I could see why people called U2 the biggest band in the world, U2 have critical and mainstream success, a band like Bon Jovi doesn't really have critical success but from 1986-1989 they put out more successful singles than U2. Meanwhile, U2 was a little bit struggling with Rattle and Hum. The Biggest Band in the World for U2 should be in the section and not in a heading, there is no way U2 was the biggest band in the world from 1986-1989 especially in a time ruled by hair metal. I am not a hair metal fanboy by any means, I mostly edit on grunge, post-grunge or alternative rock wikipedia but U2 becoming the biggest band in the world from 1986-1989 is kind of false. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC) )

Also, I did had my source to back up that Bon Jovi was the biggest band in the world. It was this source http://www.shmoop.com/blaze-of-glory/music.html, it states, Suddenly Bon Jovi was the biggest band in the world. Also, I have another source for Bon Jovi becoming the biggest band in the world, it is in this magazine, https://books.google.com/books?id=KCEcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT9&lpg=PT9&dq=Bon+Jovi+became+the+biggest+band+in+the+world&source=bl&ots=cxnvXHFos2&sig=X_zcD394HUKp9zdchQIl4vv6I0E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z3bGVKXCA6XIsASSg4K4AQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Bon%20Jovi%20became%20the%20biggest%20band%20in%20the%20world&f=false, it states We seek out to be, Bon Jovi became the biggest band in the world. So, I don't think there shouldn't be any biggest band in the world during in that time in the late 80s. But, as for The Police and Led Zeppelin like you said earlier, The Police and Led Zeppelin didn't had any hard competition it was just right there, as for U2 it wasn't right there, they were facing tough competitors to reached that title.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC) )
 * This Talk thread needs to be wrapped up immediately, as Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) resolved it conclusively at "16:18" on "26 January 2015 (UTC)": "Regardless of how true it may or may no be, it's not an encyclopedic statement to have in an article, let alone a section title." This matter is closed. Furthermore, the statement cannot be verified by any sources—sales figures are not sufficient for such a claim. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a reason for wrapping the discussion up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The three, yes three, sources used in the article to cite this are opinion pieces, one even a blog, all by different authors giving their opinion. Should definitely shown s such in prose and not used as a section title. Murry1975 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

New Image
Hello, I've decided to alter the band's wiki page image. I did this because the newly added image is more noticeable and it shows the 4 peice band better from left to right. The reason why is better is because is more prominent. Feel free to let me know what you think. Correctingsection0062 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by more prominent or noticeable... do you mean it's easier to see the individual band members? I honestly like natural photos of a group performing in their "natural habitat" more so than a collection of headshots. It's more representative of what the group does. If I am really curious what Adam Clayton looks like, chances are I will go to his article to see a large photo of him. I think we should keep the old photo until there's a consensus to change it to something else. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

By more "prominent" I mean that you can see the band as a whole clearly, instead of seeing a washed out photo with poor lighting. Also, you stated that you like natural photos because it shows what the band does. Although that may be true, but I'm pretty sure you know that all the U2 members have their own individual projects wether is music or not. So having the headshots means more to band due to the "indiviual project" reasons. Hey, I like a seeing a live band photo. But the U2 members are not just only in U2, but they have their own works as well. Making the headshot photo more convenient. I hope you reconsider and have a good one. Correctingsection0062 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The image allows us to see the faces of the musicians more clearly but lacks the energy of the original. It also helps you to understand that we are looking at a band article and which instruments are used in the band and who is playing them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy's Bitch
While humorous, I don't think "Thin Lizzy's Bitch" should direct to this article. I am going to work on removing it, but anyone with more experience feel free to do it first. Coemgenv (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Already had it speedily deleted. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the most influential and innovate acts
Ok, so I'm new here and I typed this statement below with 3 links that support it. But, according to some users they see it as unnecessary. What am I doing wrong?
 * Your edits contradict WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. -- Chamith   (talk)  06:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Boy Tour
Would you guys mind giving me a hand with the tour dates on the Boy Tour? Thanks!

http://tours.atu2.com/tour/boy U2fan01 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Profile pic changed
As the uploader of the previous image, I prefer it over the current. Thoughts? U2fan01 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A comment was added to my user page (not user talk, so I moved it to my talk page). I think the MSG picture, File:2005-11-21 U2 @ MSG by ZG.JPG, is better. It has better composition the one U2fan01 added, File:U2 2015.jpg, and it better represents this band—any band actually. The 2015 image is newer, and for current bands, "newer" is usually preferable, but I would rather stay with the MSG image because it shows the band on instruments, it's straight up the middle rather than off from a side, and the focus is sharper. With that said, the 2015 image should be in the article somewhere, just not the infobox image. The other fault I find with the MSG image is that Mullen (the drummer) is somewhat obscured by his drum kit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on U2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/u2s_serious_fun

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Early members
Whether to consider Dik Evans and Ivan McCormick early members is something I've wanted to address for a while and a recent edit has inspired me to try to open this discussion.

Most sources say that U2 was formed in 1976. If you go by this date of formation and don't consider previous names for the band (Feedback, The Hype) to be completely separate bands, then surely is is reasonable to call Dik Evans (with the band until March 1978) and Ivan McCormick (with the band for several weeks initially) to be initial members (Peter Martin can probably be excluded, having only showed up at the first practice). It might be a stretch to call them former members of U2 (having never played with the band when it was called U2), but it is absolutely factual to say they were formerly in the band. The only scenario in which I would agree with excluding Evans and McCormick as former members is if you redefine the date of formation to 1978, when they changed their name to U2, but again, most sources state 1976 as their year of formation. As for how to treat these two in the infobox, I think something like how the Beatles article handles it, where a link "See members section for others" is used in place of their names, is a suitable way to handle it considering their tenure and how their membership in the band does not coincide with the band when it was called U2.

Thoughts? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been discussion about this on the talk page of Infobox musical artist. The discussions frown upon linking to the article, but I personally don't see a problem with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-reading this, I will self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I know this section is a couple of months old, but I decided to take the liberty to make some auto corrections when it comes to the past members category. The difference between U2 and The Beatles is that The Beatles had their past members as being branded as The Beatles, while U2 has their past members as being branded as "The Hype" or "Feedback." Also, their isn't even enough sources or evidence to actually show that those members were in the band. No photos, black/white videos, media coverage, etc. By the way, it's more suitable to keep those members in the article but being labeled as "The Hype" or "Feedback." Just like I stated you're not gonna find any personnel that has those members being branded as "U2." If you do, I`ll revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it disingenuous that we have a "Members" section in the article body that lists people that used to be in the band, but not the infobox. There should not be conflicting information given by these sections, and right now when I look at the infobox, I assume there were no prior members of the band. I completely understand the point about members who were in the band prior to its being named U2, but canonically, the current band members consider the 1976-1978 history to be part of the same band. Thus, there is no reason to ignore in the infobox that there were previous members. I think you and I agree that McCormick, Evans, and Martin should not have nearly the same level of prominence as Bono, Edge, Clayton, and Mullen in the infobox due to their tenure and the fact that they preceded the U2 name. Which is why I see no harm in keeping a "see members section" link in the "previous members" parameter that takes you to the article body to explain. Just look at how The Beatles and Queen handle it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for contacting. Now to get to the bottoms of this, the reason why those members aren't in the infobox it's because they weren't branded as U2 members and this is a U2 wikipedia article. Stop comparing U2's wikipedia to Queens' or The Beatles'. We all know that U2 ever since the release of their debut album they have been here with all the members that they started with, with no line up change. Also, The Beatles and Queen were branded as The Beatles and Queen with those previous members. Like I stated before when you find a personnel that includes those pre-U2 members as "U2" members, then we can have a link in the infobox redirecting the members section. It's just at this point having that seems like a deception and there isn't much noteworthy sources. The thing is The Beatles and Queen's wikipedia handles it differently because their situation is much different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are treating the name change as a distinct division in U2's history, as if their years as the Hype and Feedback make them an entirely different band. That is not the case. The band contends they were founded in 1976, so that is the point in history where we should start counting former members from. If the infobox's "time active" says 1976-present, the members section of the infobox should capture that same time period. I don't see why having a "see members section" link is so harmful. We aren't adding the names of the early members to the infobox, and nowhere does that the infobox label say "former members of the band during the time they were known as U2". It just says "former members", which is entirely accurate considering the history of the band is considered to start in 1976, not 1978. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing here is that "U2" is an idea that was formed in 1976. While it's true that those members were part of that idea, they weren't/aren't apart of the brand that is "U2." The reason why it looks harmful to even have those members in the infobox, it's because by hinting them in the infobox, means that it's ok to put them in the "U2" brand. It's TRUE that the idea was formed in 1976, since they're not in the "U2" brand, I don't see a reason why there should be an infobox with them. The members don't have adequate sources and they weren't even in the brand to begin with. Therefore, they are lucky to have a mention in the members section as "Pre U2." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This entire rationale is a huge stretch. I don't know what "brands" and "ideas" have to do with this. The band, regardless of its lineup, was founded in 1976. That should not be up for debate. There used to be other members of the band between 1976-1978. Thus, they fall into the history of the band, regardless of what they were called and when (and the infobox represents the band and its entire history, not just the current iteration of it). If Feedback and the Hype were considered by the current U2 members to be a distinct band from U2, I would see your point. But they don't. If X Company changed its name at some point in their history and still considered itself to be the same company, a former CEO for that company would still be called a former CEO of the company. The changing of the company name alone does not alter its history. Long story short: the name changes in U2's history are irrelevant when we are detailing the collective group. Which is why I see absolutely no problem with there being a "former members" section in the infobox that does't mention the early members by name. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If RSes indicate that they were members of U2, then we should support that in the article and add to infobox.
 * If RSes indicate that they were in bands that contained members of the band that later became known as U2, we should indicate that, but not include the non-U2 members in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Island Records UK site has a mini-bio on the band here that says: "The band originally formed in 1976 when Larry Mullen posted a bulletin in his school asking for musicians to form a rock band. The band then consisted of the four current members plus three additional guitarists, including The Edge’s brother Dick Evans (later a member of Virgin Prunes), Ivan McCormick and Peter Martin." Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a primary source, but it is a source. I would rather see one from the band's biographers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

changed topic to discuss the infobox image
This might be off topic in pertaining to the topic at hand. But, U2's article image is 11 years old and it barely shows the drummer. Now, the band is still playing and recording music and they're still stuck with a decade old image that obscures the drummer. Don't you think it's time for a new more modern image. Like something from their latest tour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to find a free image you think would be a suitable replacement. I haven't come across one yet. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So, I've came across this one awhile back. It's up to you if you want to keep it or not. Please your advice is highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatlesMania64 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what made you think it was a free image, it was definitely non-free. Non-free content cannot be uploaded to WikiCommons, and if free content is available, it should be used in the article over non-free. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Songs of Experience
Don’t you guys think we should have at least some info about the upcoming album on the page? I mean, we already have many sources: statements from the band, gig rumors. I tried to add a section about the album, but it was reverted. Thoughts? U2fan01 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Until we have confirmed information about the album and its release, I see no reason to add anything. The band are notorious for speaking about projects and then plans changing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There was just a tour announced. I think it’s time to add some stuff... U2fan01 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We add information about the tour, supported by reliable sources, not speculation about an upcoming album. Bono has been known to intentionally spread misdirection. The fact that this tour is for an album released three decades ago is another reason your request makes no sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Details about reference "McCormick (2008), p. 37"
Editor Barrerito Augustus has added some content "U2 is considered by many to be the biggest rock-pop band on planet." and credited it to "McCormick (2008), p. 37". Looking at the references I see this comes up to support other parts of the article as well, but I can't see what actual work of McCormick's it refers. I imagine McCormick is a recognised authority as he appears in references for 2006 as well. Neither of these are in the bibliography, so I'm not sure how I can verify this addition. Any ideas? AntiVan (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll save you the trouble - there's nothing about this in the McCormick book published in 2006. And even if there were, it would have been the band members' words directly, which seem like an unreliable source if we're trying to cite a statement as ridiculous as the one trying to be added. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 11:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks AntiVan (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805043350/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=home&sid=aef6sR60oDgM to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=home&sid=aef6sR60oDgM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

U2 gig in the line U2 in Berlin
Hey Y2kcrazyjoker4,

do you wanna tease me? you wanna deteriorate my edit rating?

In my point of view, in terms of marketing, this gig was interesting. I guess it's quite unusual a band got a name like a rapid transit line.

It belongs to the article.

Any comments? Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of marketing, it may have been. In terms of notability and reliable sources it wasn't. I would have reverted if Y2kcrazyjoker4 hadn't. Tschüß. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Walter Görlitz,
 * thx for your comment.
 * My statepoint is the German newspaper FAZ's website is a reliable source.
 * Do you wanna say, the German newspaper FAZ's isn't a reliable source?
 * Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your source, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/u2-spielen-in-der-berliner-u2-ein-ueberraschungskonzert-15327688.html, is from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which could be a reliable source, but that entry is a fluff piece and doesn't meet RS. Compare it with this piece. It has a byline (author) where as yours doesn't. It is lengthy, while yours isn't. U2, and other bands, have pulled many such stunts. Unless it's widely publicized, it's not really encyclopedic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article for 2018 U2 Experience + Innocence Tour
Feel free to add content to this new article > Experience + Innocence Tour

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no new article. There is not currently enough content to meet WP:NTOUR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Past Members On The Infobox Dispute"
We all know that the band U2 had 2 different names when they started out. Within those different names there were also 3 other members. Now, the issue is having those 3 other "early members" getting a reference in the infobox as "past members." It just doesn't add up, here's a live performance from when they hadn't released their first EP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe6VtCRTvsU Even in this live performance I cannot see the other members and if I can't seem them here what makes you think I am going to see them anywhere? So, the point is why have a largely exposed infobox that has a reference to these others members and then have audacity to label them as "past members." Rebound55 (talk)
 * What do the sources say? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your cherry picking of a random performance from a random point in the band's history is your justification for your argument? I'm sorry if you think the article should ignore the time before the group was called U2, but this is an encyclopedia. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article should ignore the time before the band was named U2, because I acknowledge the fact that those 3 other members were from U2, but before they became U2. I never completely deleted them from the article so how am I ignoring their existence in the article? Also, me cherry picking a random point in a band's history is still more reliable than the sources you've provided for below. So according to your logic, a website that contains a written source is more reliable than what we humans can see with our naked eyes.Rebound55 (talk)


 * I'm sorry, what did I cherry pick? I apologize if I did something untoward, but really I was just asking a question.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dbrodbeck, there are 3 people to consider as part of your question:
 * Dik Evans - was at the first practice on 25 Sept 1976, and remained with the group until March 1978. He was much a founding member of the group as Bono, Edge, Larry, and Adam.
 * Ivan McCormick - was also at the first practice on 25 Sept 1976, wrote in his diary on that day "Joined a pop group with friends and we rehearsed". Another entry on Oct 9/10 in his diary said "Rehearsed all day in the music room at school." Around that time, before their first gig, Adam told him he couldn't remain with them because their show was in a pub and he was too young (a lie, as the other were too young as well). And that was that.
 * Peter Martin - sources don't agree on whether Peter was there. Most accounts, such as a Larry in the U2 by U2 biography and Ivan's brother Neil, mention Peter's guitar and amp were used but he couldn't play and was going to be the manager. In a recent interview, Ivan can't remember Peter actually being at the practice. Island Records' bio of U2 mentions Peter as a founder. Either way, no sources seem to indicate him being involved in any capacity beyond the first practice. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources in the past members section, there's no reason to remove a link to it in the infobox, although it is not a recommended practice. The usual practice is to summarize the contents in the infobox rather than link to it, unless that content would make the infobox inordinately large. Removing it completely is not appropriate.
 * If there is a question about who the former members are, that's a different matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

When it comes down to it where is the link provided for Dik Evans? The questioning of Peter Martin being in the band or not and the link that you mentioned does not directly state that he was a founder. So you feel like this justifies your reasoning for putting them on the infobox and labelling them as "past members?" Listen, there isn't solid concrete proof to give such members grand exposure as "past members." It all seems too abrupt and impulsive and in a way kinda desperate. Not too mention what you once told me, this is an encyclopedia. Then why exaggerate such a far-fetched idea which will lead to deception among readers.Rebound55 (talk)

In other words, those sources are too tenious to even have those members in the infobox labelled as "past members." Also, Peter Martin's eradication shows that you're just adding fuel to the fire. It's like a flying vehicle in auto-pilot going berserk without permanent control.Rebound55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . C.Fred . You don't seem to understand what that means. I have reported your behaviour to the an3 board. If you take a look at the contents of the page over time, that content has been there for a while (just like it wasn't there for a long while) and there's no need to make a change to it right now. Back off and wait for other editors to come to WP:CONSENSUS rather than impose your opinion on the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to branch off for a moment, does anyone think that it's worth mentioning in the Members Section that the band has basically consisted of the same lineup for 40 years. That has got to be some kind of record! There are no other bands at their level or above who have never had a lineup change. Not even The Stones! Even if you decide that they did have a lineup change - by dropping a few members when they were still finding their footing - they've never had to replace someone. In fact the only other well known band I can think of who have never had a lineup change are ZZ Top. Keeping a band together is a very hard thing to do at the best of times. Managing to do it for 40 years, during which many great bands have come and gone, is something to be very proud of and, as such, it might be worth pointing out? Just a thought... FillsHerTease (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove the "Past Members" section from the infobox and have the information placed lower in the article, As there was no "Past Members" when they became U2, it's quite deceiving - February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemccauley (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be possible yes. I agree that U2 had no prior members. You'll have to achieve consensus though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And how do I go about doing that Walter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemccauley (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We discuss it and when enough people agree, we can apply the change. That has not yet happened. There's no timeline to achieve consensus though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would reread Talk:U2/Archive 8, as this topic was pretty well covered before. The band's history began in 1976, at which time the band began as Bono, Edge, Larry, Adam, Dik Evans, and Ivan McCormick. They were there from the beginning. Ivan left a few weeks after they began, and Dik left in March 1978. But they are unequivocally early members. However, their tenure with the band was so short, so minimally covered in retrospect, and prior to the band being named U2, so for that reason (and because of disagreement on whether they should be shown in an infobox for a group currently named U2), they are currently not given the same "billing" as the long-time members, and instead linked to in the "Band members" section. The Beatles article handles the same situation for 2 early members of that band in the same way (although those 2 people were actually in the band at the time it was called the Beatles). I see no reason to change things. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 02:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Alternative rock" genre ? in the infobox ?
Could you provide reliable sources, advancing that the band were presented as an alternative rock band by critics ? What I mean by reliable sources are high quality sources from music historians, music articles (like Spin, Rolling Stone, Mojo, Uncut ...), or high quality websites (like Pitchfork). I am sure that we can find dodgy material supporting that they were alternative but so far, I have not seen yet high quality sources saying that they can be presented under this label. It is subject to discussion. The March 2018 version of the FA article said that they were inspired by some elements coming from alternative bands in the early 1990s but it is not enough to make an amalgam and present them like this. Woovee (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All of U2's output from the 1990s would fall under alternative rock. There's many references that say so. They even won a Grammy Award in 1994 for Best Alternative Music Album (Zooropa). Not sure what the controversy is.


 * Here's a reference from 1992:
 * Here's an article from AlternationNation.net describing how U2 "joined the '90s alternative rock revolution": https://www.alternativenation.net/how-u2-joined-90s-alternative-rock-revolution/
 * Here's a 2010 retrospective by Spin that said "U2 became the emblematic band of the alternative-rock era with Achtung Baby: http://www.spin.com/2012/02/125-best-albums-past-25-years/26/


 * I hope that settles it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. Judging by the poor quality of your sources bar Spin's, their belonging to the "alternative rock" genre is not frequent at all. Note that Allmusic, Pitchfork, Uncut, Q magazine, Rolling Stone have never presented them as a alternative rock band.


 * Would you have other sources ? I have never seen them cited as alternative rock in the British press in the 1990s and the 2000s by any famous papers either.


 * The Grammies is a ceremony entirely financed by record compagnies and the band's compagny, this is not enough. It's not a quote from a impartial article/journalist.
 * Advancing a 1992 article from "Toronto Star" without providing a quote from the actual paper, is not helpful. And Toronto Star is not a high quality source to talk about music and associating genres with bands, do they. They are not recognized by other famous music journalists for their work, otherwise they would be cited.
 * "alternativenation.net" is a poor source and it is a blog/website. I asked for high quality sources, please and the url of alternativenativenation ends with "dot.net" and not "dot.com" which means that it is not a professionnal website recognized as such. Its wp:notability is poor.
 * The Spin source is the only one good source and it is going to be included in the article but it comes from a very recent article, dated 2012.


 * We need quotes from pop music historians, like Simon Reynolds, Tony Fletcher, Clinton Heylin... Woovee (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you aren't satisfied with these references or that you just disagree, but Spin is plenty reliable. What difference does it matter when it was published? Also - judging a website solely based on whether it is .com or .net is pretty unfair.
 * From the Washington Post in March 1997: "Live sounded like a mix of the two most commercially successful "alternative" rock bands: R.E.M. and U2". https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-707706.html
 * Allmusic unequivocally lists U2 as an alternative rock band: https://www.allmusic.com/subgenre/alternative-indie-rock-ma0000012230/artists
 * All of this is also completely ignoring the band's earliest days as post-punk/first wave of alternative rock...
 * From Ohio.com / The Beacon Journal: "The Joshua Tree turned an already internationally popular alt-rock band into superstars with a social and spiritual message.": https://www.ohio.com/akron/entertainment/pop-music/u2-brings-massive-joshua-tree-tour-to-cleveland-s-firstenergy-stadium
 * Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 03:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I had asked high quality sources but these ones are not.
 * The washington Post source is taken from an article about another band Live (band), it is not from a paper about U2. Really, if "All of U2's output from the 1990s would fall under alternative rock. There's many references that say so.", why do you submit this link ?
 * Allmusic doesn't work either in this present case. See WP:RSMUSIC, it is said about Allmusic; "Biography/reviews prose are reliable, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose", and U2 is not mentioned in the prose of this article about 'alternative rock'.
 * "Ohio.com" source is from 2017 and it may be a case of a writer taking a wrong information on wikipedia and reproducing it on a professional website, like Spin's source which is also very recent and is in part a copy/paste of this wiki article;
 * Are there U2 fans who could provide sources of the 1990s, 2000s mentioning them as alternative rock ?
 * The fact that very famous music papers Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NME, Uncut, etc don't qualify the band as alternative rock as do music historians when writing articles/reviews about U2, is problematic and raises questions. Woovee (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How do your high-quality sources describe the period of their career that Y2kcrazyjoker4 is discussing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * U2 are presented under the umbrellas of: 'post-punk' for their early years, 'rock' from 1987 in the articles and also 'rock' for the 1990s and beyond in all the articles that I have read about them in the British press (eclectic influences is one thing, making an amalgam with those influences to add a genre is another thing). If long-time contributors of this article don't know sources from famous music-papers & music websites (published in the 1990s, 2000s), dubbing the group as an alternative rock band, one can wonder if the alternative rock tag is appropriate Woovee (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So now you're accusing a reputable writer for the Beacon Journal and Spin- a high quality source by your definition-of plagiarising Wikipedia? Without any proof? You've really gone off the deep end. I'm not going to engage with you on this subject any further because you are going to find something to complain about or some reason to disregard any reference I have to offer to this conversation. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 02:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can people have a conversation without getting emotional. I wrote it May be a case, I didn't write it "is" a case, so please, do not create melodramas to avoid replying to a reasonable concern..Woovee (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like their entire career. Wikipedia guidelines are to respect not just one period of a band's career. This has been discussed on the talk page of Template:Infobox musical artist (see also its archives). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that you only found out 2 sources Spin and "Ohio.com" and they are from 2012 and 2017. Which means that previously, before year 2012, the "alternative rock" genre was included in the infobox of this article and this was not supported by reliable sources. This is why I wrote that these 2 recent writers may have based their work on this wikipedia article to consider U2 an alternative rock band. A lot of famous journalists read wikipedia as part of their research when working, I don't know why it is insulting reputable writers to mention this.
 * I let you both a few days to find reliable sources from the vaults associating the band to the alternative rock genre. If you can find in your documentation high qualitysources of the 1990s and 2000s dealing with U2, that would be great. One sees that Y2Kcrazyjoker4 and Walter Görlitz are long time contributors of this article which means they know well the subject and will be able to source material associating the band with the alternative rock genre, as one of them asserted in this discussion this: "All of U2's output from the 1990s would fall under alternative rock. There's many references that say so.". We look forward to reading them. Woovee (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? There is no hint of emotion in my response simply factual response to your comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Substance (rather than form), please. Woovee (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Irish or British band?
This topic has been discussed before but without a satisfactory conclusion. Is it fair to describe this group as Irish, unqualified? Two (half) of the members are English... in addition to this "Bono" not only has a eyebrow raising Dublin Anglican background himself, but has accepted a so-called "knighthood" from the British monarchy and is pretentiously described as a "Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire." (!) Their output is also completely cut off from Irish musical culture and they take their influence instead from British and American pop "culture". We need to clarify this British aspect more clearly in the introduction. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that call them a "British" band as opposed to an "Irish" band? For instance, AllMusic avoids the point. The summary indicates that they formed in Dublin, Ireland but states that they set records in British music history. Rolling Stone indicates that the band consists of four Irishmen. We can try to impose external preferences, but we should do what the sources state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bono's accepting an honorific title 30 years into his career cannot retroactively change the country of origin for the band he has been a member of, that is just ridiculous. This topic has been covered ad nauseum, so I recommend consulting a previous discussion on this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeal the Eighth
I recently added the following material to the "Campaigning and activism" section:

"On May 1, 2018, U2 tweeted its support for the proposed repeal of the Eighth Amendment, Ireland's constitutional ban on elective abortion. The tweet generated a mixed response, with some U2 fans expressing opposition to the band's stance.   Irish voters voted to repeal the amendment on May 25, 2018. "

User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 has reverted this paragraph, stating that "tweeting support for something is not equivalent with campaigning for causes." I respectfully disagree, and believe that the material should be reinstated. Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Over a 42 year career, the band has done a lot of campaigning for social justice causes and political issues. However, the article doesn't cover every single one of these. If it did, the section would cover pages. The issues that it does cover are ones in which the band has dedicated considerable time, effort, and resources. The band's take on social or political issues with one-time statements or tweets is not nearly comparable to causes it has actively participated in. The band's stance on abortion might have made news, but it came and went with the daily new cycle and per WP:NOTNEWS, does not warrant inclusion. In the grand scheme of things, it is not significant to this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;contributions) 01:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADIARY not everything that a notable subject does is notable. Just because they write about or do something does not automatically mean that we need to include it in the article. If WP:SECONDARY sources write about it though, then we should consider it. It does seem as though sources are talking about it. As Y2kcrazyjoker4 has stated, they have done a lot of campaigning for social justice issues. Maybe you could start an article on that subject and we could have a summary here. 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Order of band members
The order of the band members in the article (in the infobox, members section, band template) was changed recently to be alphabetically sorted. While I understand why this could be applied to many artists, it doesn't make sense to me for U2, a band whose members are almost always credited in the same order as Bono, Edge, Adam, and Larry. On each of the band's creative works, they have used this order, from every album (see the liner notes for Boy, October, War, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Rattle and Hum, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, Pop, All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, No Line on the Horizon, Songs of Innocence, Songs of Experience) to their official autobiography. Countless reliable sources have used this order in mentioning the band members (see this New York Times profile or article on a Dublin concert by the Irish Independent for a sample). I see no reason to go with an arbitrary order when there is one that seems to be established by the band and by reliable sources. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical is wrong per Template:Infobox musical artist, but so is "most commonly sourced". It should be in order of joining., then alphabetical. So in this case, alphabetical was correct, but I can also see your point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:U2 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:U2 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No criticism
Where in the world is the criticism about this group in the article ? Did someone clean it up? KhlavKhalash (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, from my experience, most band articles do not have a criticism section - see Beatles or Rolling Stones for examples. Articles on songs and albums, alternatively, do include criticism. If you have specific information in mind that you think should be added, feel free to propose it here. But just because U2 is much maligned by certain mainstream individuals doesn't mean we need a section saying - 'in 2019, so and so said U2 had sold out and hadn't been good since the 80s.' I'm not being trite, but please -do- propose actual changes and we can discuss (not you and me, but you, me, and the community.) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sections dedicated to criticism are generally not encyclopedic. The information is better served being inserted into the parts of the article where it is contextually relevant. See WP:CRITICISM Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Section titles
"The Joshua Tree Tours 2017 and 2019, Songs of Experience, and Experience + Innocence Tour (2016–2019)" was stretching out the table of contents to a gross extent, so I shortened it to "The Joshua Tree Tours and Songs of Experience (2016-2019)". I guess my question is, are the names of the tours needed in the headers, or should we just shorten these to the album names (with the exception of any especially notable concerts like LiveAid, maybe) ? I ask because the early sections like "The Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum (1986–1990)" do not include the names of the tours, but at some point they become standard. I realize this could be contentious, but in most band articles (from my experience), only the album names are included. My opinion is that it just makes it easier to navigate, and since the tours are associated with the albums, I don't think we'd lose much understanding. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk  13:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The band's early tours share names with their albums, so it doesn't make much sense to mention them. At a certain point, tour names were distinct from the albums. Since they are equally important to the band's history, I see no reason to discard them except for concision. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"You 2" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect You 2. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Pop rock
I've added references from Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Michael Heatley, and Gerry Smyth in support of pop rock as one of the band's genres. Would it be safe to add the genre to the infobox at this point? isento (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It would be WP:UNDUE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an odd take, considering none of the other subgenres in the infobox have more than one source each verifying them in the article. isento (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Musicologist Susan Fast writes an entire chapter on the band in Walter Everett's book on Expressions in Pop-Rock Music (referencing their return to "rock and pop sounds" in the 2000s); music school professor Christopher Endrinal uses the band's music as a framework for pop-rock analysis ("Burning Bridges: Defining the Interverse in the Music of U2"); Houston Press credits them with inventing "entire chunks of pop-rock" . According to Forbes writer Zack O'Malley Greenburg, they have been "hailed as one of the top pop-rock acts of all-time". . isento (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Isento, I fail to see how undue weight applies here. There is no shortage of sources to pick from. Here are some additional ones:   Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 14:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One source would be UNDUE. Multiple are not. WP:GWAR as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And now we're ignoring the advice in Template:Infobox musical artist that suggests we should "aim for generality" and instead have three "rock music" sub-genres along with the generic genre. Either we drop the generic in favour of the more specific, or keep the one and leave details for the prose of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reduce it to "Rock, pop". Several high-quality sources (both journalistic and academic) support the latter isento (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, and leave the additional genres in the musical style section I assume. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. isento (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think need we need to simplify the genres anymore. I think the four that are listed now are simple enough. If there were more than 4 genres, then it would definitely need to be simplified. I don't think removing genres that they are described as frequently ("post-punk" and "alternative rock") is a good idea. Maybe remove the general and broad "rock" label and just keep "alternative rock", "post-punk", and "pop rock" if you want to simplify it. Otherwise, I think the four genres are fine. They are all sourced well in the article. Bowling is life (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The advice is to go general and all three of the others are sub-genres of rock. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Bowling is Life. I don't see the need to oversimplify the genres to "rock" and "pop" when the genres we have already are sourced and cover the band's 45 year career well enough (and simplifying to "pop" would be overly reductionist). I can see Walter's point about having 3 subgenres and the main genre, but it doesn't seem like a big enough issue to me to resort to drastic changes. If it's enough of a showstopper for everyone else, then we can just remove "rock" and leave "Pop rock", "alternative rock", and "post-punk". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bowling, I would vote to keep, especially alternative rock, but I'll submit to consensus. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure. Some of their major albums are too arty (Unforgettable Fire) or too rootsy (Rattle and Hum) to fall under "alternative", and sometimes I even wonder if they really rock enough even for "pop rock". And at least a few high-quality sources undermine their association with "post-punk". I'm leaning toward "Rock, pop", but I'd also like to do more research for the individual album articles, see what I can muster up about their genres. isento (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're getting too in the weeds about this and that an album-by-album investigation is not the answer. I don't think any critics have called U2 a roots rock band or an art rock band, so it wouldn't make sense to go in the band's infobox. They have called them all of the genres currently listed though... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * John Jobling in his U2 biography calls them an art rock band, specifically in the '90s, a sentiment Bono has concurred, along with this Salon piece, this Chicago Sun-Times review. And imo, "art rock" describes much of their work better than "post-punk". isento (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Post-punk was more a descriptor that applies to their origins, and was largely irrelevant after a few albums. Art rock works for some of their work as well, definitely more than post-punk. But whatever sources describe as their overarching genres I'm good with. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That's why I'd go with Rock and pop, with pop (as defined at pop music) embodying the idea of incorporating elements from a variety of styles -- gospel, dance, folk, electronic -- which is what they've done. And rock subsuming all the rock-related subgenres that can be attached to them at different points of their career. isento (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this proposed oversimplification. U2 are not a "pop" act in the way that BTS, Taylor Swift, or OneDirection are pop acts. Incorporating influences from "pop"-ular genres into their rock sound does not make them a pop act. I certainly wouldn't call them a gospel band because they melded gospel influences into "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". It would be infinitely more accurate to describe them as a "pop rock" act. In any case, "Pop rock" and "alternative rock" are quite broad descriptors as it is, so I see no reason to remove them. You will also find plenty of critics who described them as a "post-punk" band in their early years, a genre that covers more than 1/4 of the studio albums they have released. There are more than plenty of references to support "Pop rock", "alternative rock", and "post-punk". If I need to scour every available reference to convince everyone, I will. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems a little rockist. No, they're not a beat-wise boy band, or a bitter-romance singer-songwriter. But, generally speaking, which is what the guideline cited above by Walter advocates, they are a pop band. A guitar-centric, politicized/spiritually-inclined pop band. isento (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are now four commentaries cited in the article for U2, the art-rock band. isento (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the commentary, I definitely concur with that being a part of the their body-of-work. What I would say is that whatever we do, the reason I avoid going with just rock/pop with no subgenres (though I understand your argument) is that although it's true that using one term is traditional when dealing with a band that deals with a lot of subgenres, I think it's a little different when the band is transcending with the subgenres. Let me explain because that's not quite clear. If you had a band that did folk, indie folk, contemporary folk, folk jazz, etc., I would agree to simplify it to just folk. But if that band also did avant-folk and folktronica, I think it would need to be mentioned, because those are subgenres that push past the common sense inference that the term "folk" connotes. So similarly with U2, if they were just a blend of blues rock, folk rock, dance pop, punk pop, jazz rock, synth pop, etc., I might lean toward just saying rock and pop. But because they are so alternative and arty with their body of work, particularly post-80s, I think some designation should be given that implies how far outside of traditional rock they went. This is maybe a subjective argument but that's the distinction that makes sense to me. I don't think we necessarily need post-punk because that was so short a period, but I think alternative and/or art rock, along with rock and pop should work as umbrellas - rock and pop for the majority of subgenres, and alternative rock and art pop/rock for the rest of the experimentation. My two cents. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I count maybe 8 high-quality sources here that call them "arena rock" too, and justifiably so. What if, to compromise on your point, we add avant-garde alongside rock and pop? Per The U2 Reader (chapter by John Smith), Visnja Cogan, Colin Larkin. isento (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think arena rock is just a subgenre that would be sufficiently implied with the rock label, but yes, whichever between avant-garde or alternative that is considered to be the more all-encompassing and accurate would be a good label. I favor alternative just because I see it more with bands like R.E.M., but I'm not strongly opinioned enough to argue one over another, so we all give our stance and go with the majority. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of "Rock, alternative, pop". isento (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot take any suggestion of adding "avant-garde" seriously, I'm sorry. I really think you've gotten astray if that is a recommendation. "Arena rock" is not really a genre in itself - it's more of a performance style or an ambition for a certain audience. I still see no reason to deviate from "Pop rock", "alternative rock", and "post-punk". Maybe they aren't post-punk anymore, but again, more than a quarter of their studio output falls under that genre. Just because they evolved past it doesn't mean it just gets ignored. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground. Take it easy. isento (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it says or shows more than a quarter of their studio output to fall under "post-punk". It seems closer to one-fifth (Boy thru War, according to Treblezine). There is a fine line between editorial judgement and irrelevant opinion. Please cite some supporting text instead of what can be (dis)regarded as your own opinion. isento (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Genre
Would you add new wave in the genre section of the infobox after post-punk? As they are described as new wave in the Billboard source of U2's 25 Best Songs: Critic's Picks - "During its early years, U2 flew the flag for vibrant post-punk and new wave." Therefore their genres would be "Rock, alternative rock, post-punk, new wave". Please add the genre to article if you agree. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To quote from the post-punk article: "Before the early 1980s, many groups now categorized as 'post-punk' were subsumed under the broad umbrella of 'new wave', with the terms being deployed interchangeably. 'Post-punk' became differentiated from 'new wave' after their styles perceptibly narrowed." I think post-punk is sufficient, considering that is what most critics describe their early sound as. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If multiple sources called them new wave, we could consider it. I see one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which other sources call them new wave? Chicago Reader says "they conveniently switched their sound from edgy and angular new wave to the more enveloping formalistic grandeur of its latter-day work." Here's a good source from Hot Press here: "Newly-formed Dublin new wave band U2 scored a blow for rock'n'roll..." and this Hot Press source is also mentioned in several books/publications such as Bono: A Biography and U2: A Musical Biography. Two of their early songs are also reliably sourced as new wave: "New Year's Day" and "The Refugee" from the album War. As 'post-punk' and 'new wave' were used interchangeably and there are sources which also describe them as new wave, then they can both be in the infobox, followed with " (early) " to be more specific. Hiddenstranger (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I only see two sources in your reply calling the band a "new wave" band (one of which isn't linked), while the others are only relevant to specific songs. This all seems pointless to me, since critics conflated to the two terms "post-punk" and "new wave" widely at the time the genres were at their peak (and some still do) and yet the group are much more widely associated with post-punk. We shouldn't be trying to cover every possible musical description the band may have been called. We're talking about a very small period of time in the history of a group that has been around 44 years. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * U2 were post-punk AND new wave at the same time in their early career, thus the number of reliable sources calling them new wave (as well as post-punk). I think it'd be better to insert "new wave" in the lede where it says "Initially rooted in post-punk (and new wave)", together with the sources. Then there would be no need to put new wave in the infobox. Any thoughts? What is the source you mentioned you saw? Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources you have given do not say their early sound was "rooted in new wave", so we should not be adding your suggested wording. The band members always identified their group as post-punk, just as most critics using the modern definitions of the two genres weigh on the side of calling them post-punk. For a musical period that covered less than 20% of their entire career, it is unnecessarily specific to state both genres in the lead, particularly when, as I have already mentioned, the two genres were conflated so heavily and eventually diverged into different directions. We should be leaning on the side of brevity and concision for a lead, not ultra-specificity. Post-punk is sufficient at covering the general sound of their early music stylings. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 02:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a requirement for it to meet the wikipedia entry definitions of |Rock Rock Music and |Pop PopMusic? Reviewing both, U2 better meets wikipedia's definition of pop music. Although previously U2 may have been considered rock, they lack the edge or aggression associated with rock genre (AC/DC, Rage Against the Machine), or the anti-establishment anger & rejection of mainstream attitude |punk Punk Music, which defines it.  On the contrary, U2 embraces mainstream radio play and it is a major factor for their success.  According to wikipedia's pop music definition "includes many disparate styles" & "pop became associated with music that was more commercial, ephemeral, and accessible." it would be hard for someone to argue U2 failed to meet this criteria; thegremlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGremlin (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No requirement to meet the article's definitions. There is a requirement for reliable sources to supply clear genres. We can list those. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Christian rock" should be added to genres.
 * https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/church-u2
 * https://religionnews.com/2014/09/18/u2-secretly-christian-heres-new-yorker-missed/
 * https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/the-worlds-biggest-rock-band-is-a-christian-rock-band/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMyers523 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the phrase "Christian rock band"... there's a very big difference between a "Christian rock" band (one that falls into the "Christian rock" genre) and a Christian "rock band" (a rock band that identifies as Christian). "Christian rock" is primarily worship music that is not generally not acknowledged in the secular music world. U2 does not fall into this boat. Having religious themes in their music does not automatically make it religious music. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Christian rock is not primarily worship music. That is Christian worship music. Three of the members of the band are Christian. The lyricist is one of them. That is the definition of a Christian rock band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

May me interesting to mention "their mark".
How they have influenced bands like "The Killers" and how they have had many things named after them, such as a virus called Microbacterium virus U2! Could be a good paragraph, however I don't feel confident enough in the musical field to write it. Yirch (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Original Soundtracks 1 in discography section
I think Original Soundtracks 1 should be listed in the Discography section of this article. Whether under a different name or not, it is a full length album of original material that 1) is composed and performed by the members of U2 (along with Brian Eno, of course) and 2) in the case of some tracks, (notably "Miss Sarajevo" and "Your Blue Room"), has appeared on albums under the name U2 (most notably The Best of 1990-2000 but also certain live releases). I do think it should have a note next to it saying (as "Passengers") or something of the sort, but it seems strange to omit it entirely. Elephantranges (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Did U2's PR department write this article?
It's just constant praise from start to finish. 2.221.245.225 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Then you clearly didn't read the whole thing. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)