Talk:Bono/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Contents

Honorary KBE

Could someone please correct Bono's forthcoming honour? It should be KBE, not KCBE... HFJ 18:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be after his name. Bono has got numerous awards and honours, none of which are placed after his name. Why do some British people believe that their particular honours merit being placed immediately after the guy's name? Th world is bigger than this sort of parochialism. 89.100.195.42 18:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The formal "post-nominals" of the British honours system are recognised by most governments (see below). There is even an "order of post-nominals" which is recognised globally in diplomatic circles and, yes, includes certain awards from other states. Research before you make unsubstantiated claims. 86.17.247.135 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's because KBE, and any other form of British knighting or peerage, can actually be considered part of one's title. He can be thusly addressed "Sir." It's like earning a PhD grants one the title of "Doctor." Might not seem right. But that's how it works...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.10.247 (talk • contribs)

the key word there is "can". And "how it works" is not universal. and please sign your posts. regards Merbabu 03:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Key word there is "can" only if you are making it up as you go along. And it has nothing to do with "parochialism". There are strict rules that govern the British honours system which are recognised by most governments - including the Irish Republic. "KBE" is a formal state award and a proper, diplomatically- and internationally-recognised "post-nominal" and so (formally at least) should appear after one's name/title. I don't believe awards such as a Grammy are considered post-nominals and formal state awards...... (Interestingly, and as a related side note, if one has a knighthood one is banned from using nicknames with the title: for instance it is "Jimmy Goldsmith" or "Sir James Goldsmith" but categorically not "Sir Jimmy Goldsmith".) 86.17.247.135 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

the KBE does go after his name, but since it is an honarary knighthood as he is not a british citizen he is not called Sir Paul Hewson, he is to be identified as Paul David Hewson, KBE. there is no other award which becomes part of the title. however if you wanted you could say he is a grammy and MTV award ect. winning musician. Zepher25 15:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


"In 2006 Bono was named in the annual honours list as an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire."

In fact he was named in the 2007 New Years Honours List. The list is semi-annual - there is also a Birthday Honours List, the birthday being Her Majesty's, of course (a third in the event of a Prime Minister resigning or being voted out of office; a fourth after a big military campaign!): please correct the article accordingly. 86.17.247.135 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Re list, surprised to see that this has been ignored for a week given it is a straightforward correction to an erroneous statement. Done. -- Delsource (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The original statement is partly true. The public announcement was indeed made in December 2006, two weeks before the general announcement of the New Years Day Honours, but I understand the date of effect of the award was still 1 January 2007. JackofOz 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Understood, but the dispute was not about the year named, but really the name of the list. There is no "annual" honours list, Bono was named in the New Years list. It would of course be a bit verbose to say "In 2006 he was named in the 2007....". Thanks. -- Delsource (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole honour thing - he can't be addressed as "Sir" as he isn't afaik a British Citizen. That's why he has KBE after his name. It is an honourary award. Bob Geldof shouldn't referred to as "Sir Bob" for the same reason. Ronald Reagan was never "Sir Ronnie" even though he got an honourary knighthood some time ago. NotMuchToSay 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Your point about the use of "Sir" has already been pointed out and accepted for some time. And your claim that because he is an honorary recipient he has the post nominals KBE after his name instead of the prefix "Sir" is incorrect. Any award of this type - honorary or not - carries the post nominals, whether "Sir" can be used or not. It's just that those who use "Sir" often leave out the post nominals incorrectly. For instance, if Bono was British he would formally be called "Sir Paul Hewson, KBE". -- Delsource (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am amazed that my putting three simple letters at the end of the name has caused so much debate and controversy! Just to make sure everyone understands, as they probably do, a non-British citizen awarded the honour of Knight Commander of the British Empire is not entitled to use the title "Sir", but still uses the pot nominal letters. Macphisto12 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And I am amazed at how many times people post statements that repeat things already stated/agreed/conceded a long time ago - including in the same thread and indeed in the post immediately preceeding the new addition. Thanks for sorting that one out for us all, Macphisto....... Jeez; flog an already beaten-to-a-mushy-pulp dead horse, anyone? -- 86.17.211.191 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of some improvements

See also: How to Introduce Bono.

There is always room for improvement in any article. The Bono article will benefit from some tighter, more precise wording that is less fanzine and more encyclopedic.

1) He is almost universally known as Bono. It's not just an alternate name.

2) It is not just a nickname. It was originally - and the section on that makes that clear. But it has become a professional stage name. Which is different to a nickname.

3) His role as principal lyricist is far more significant than his role as an occasional guitarist/harmonica player - info that is mentioned later in the article.

4) He is known for a lot of humanitarian work - including his support for Amnesty International. So the reference should indicate there are more areas than just the two mentioned.

5) His work for Africa is NOT just IN Africa - but campaigning worldwide for the benefit OF Africa. An important distinction.

6) The text about his wife was ungrammatical (who/whom) and clumsy. "Dated since 1975" - First dated in 1975. And perhaps we can find a less fanzine word than "dated" - an American term which is certainly not the terminology that Bono and Ali would have used 1975-1982 to describe their pre-marriage relationship.

Please feel free to discuss. Davidpatrick 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact: Bono and Ali were not married on the Guinness estate (wherever that is) but in St. Anne's parish church, Raheny.83.65.178.205 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Davidpatrick! Thanks for all your edits here and getting this article better.
1&2) I think the problem that others & I were having is that the phrase "universally known by his stage name Bono" is really long and puts readers off right as they get into the article. Thanks for pointing out the difference between a nickname and stage name. I didn't know about that. Anyway, though, I think we are going to have to shorten that beginning sentence either way. Maybe we can mention he is universally known as Bono in the nickname section? How does this sound for the first sentence "Paul David Hewson (born 10 May 1960), stage name Bono,[1] is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2."?
3)I agree.
4)Feel free to edit humanitarian work. Just remember its probably at maximum length now. Keep extra comments brief and perhaps remove less important information if you do so.
5)Good point.
6)I agree.
Chupper 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it should be added in a very clear fashion that his stage name has been Bono for X(?) years now, and NOT "Bono Vox". I, for one, am not sure when he "officially / publicly" changed it, but it HAS happened and it's part of his history as U2's frontman - and therefore important. I just wanted to know better, came here, and the info wasn't available. (Anonymous user here) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.139.176.97 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Bono and U2 - Please help!

This section of the article really needs to be expanded. We've got a tag on the section and have it as a #1 priority on the to do list. It would be great if we could all contribute a little bit. I was thinking, as a start, if we could spend a few sentences per each 'album era' of U2 dealing with Bono. Then add in significant events such as his f*** the revolution speech, maybe other singers he collobrated with, things he says & does at tours. Maybe as an introduction we can discuss how Bono has directed the band in different ways such as stages, lyrics, type of music they record, etc. Any other ideas? Let's get started! Don't feel a need to discuss before you post (but you are free to do so, of course). Just make sure its referenced, and then throw it in there in some organized fashion. We can clean it up as we get more content. Chupper 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag

Anybody mind if I remove this? I don't find it aesthetic nor do I think it adds anything to the article. See also WP:FLAG and the discussion on Talk:U2. --Guinnog 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I love the "People like flags. People really, really like cute little flag icons." on the policy page! :) But, unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Take it down as it's not in accordance with policy and it does nothing for aesthetics. Chupper 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I hasten to add that WP:FLAG is not (yet) policy; but I agree it makes no sense at all to have flags popping up everywhere. It adds precisely nothing to the article and opens up a new area unnecessarily for unproductive disputes. --Guinnog 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bono

The equipment section that I started quite some time ago is desperately in need of editing. I can certainly tidy that up to everyone's satisfaction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanAV (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 January, 2007 (UTC)

If you could update that section and get it cleaned up, that would be awesome. Thanks ZanAV! Chupper 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

bono

I think the setup of Noel Gallagher's page is a good example of how we should discuss Bono's musical career. While we leave the U2 page for specifics, his page should certainly include significant events (Red Rocks, Live Aid, Fuck The Revolution, Dream It All Up Again, the concerts in Sarajevo and Santiago on the POPMART Tour, etc). The page is def lacking in that area—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanAV (talk • contribs)

I'm not so sure. All of those things you mention are band events. While of course, there will inevitebly will be some overlap, there is no need to essentially repeat the U2 article. Hmm, ok, Bono's role in Live AId is notable as an individual act, as is the Fuck the Revolution. I guess all i am saying is try to pick and seperate the notable "bono" events and the "band" events. There will of course be some overlap. We don't need to discuss in detail the tracks and development of the Joshua Tree album for example, but Bono's trip to Nicaragua and its influence on the Joshua Tree should be mentioned, for example. Merbabu 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How to Introduce Bono

There seems to be some edit wars going on regarding the introduction of Bono. They seem to be a fight for something of the following:

  • Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), almost universally known by his stage name Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2.
  • Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), stage name Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2.
  • Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), nickname Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2.
  • Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), almost universally known as Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2.

I propose we use "Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), stage name Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2."

Here is why:

  1. This introduction is brief.
  2. The "almost universally known by his stage name Bono" is long, confusing, distracting and may dissuade readers from reading the rest of the article.
  3. More information on who calls him that and what it is has been added to the stage name section. We have a whole section dedicated to his name. Why not put this information there?

Possible compromise:

If no one likes my proposal (above) we could also add in another complete sentence regarding this almost universally known as thing. But instead of extending an already long introduction, we could generate a new sentence to follow after it with this information.

Thoughts/Comments/Questions? Chupper 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

well, the basic problem with that is it is not simply a stage name. From what I can tell, only his old man called him Paul. Even his wife calls him bono. "stage name" implies for artistic purposes and off the stage he uses his other name. In fact, I'd suggest putting "bono" first and then P Hewson. i agree that "almost" universally known is clumsy but it conveys the facts much better which i think is more important - but maybe there is another way. Merbabu 05:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I like your idea of putting Bono first. That way we can avoid all this nonsense and simply say that Paul Hewson is his legal name. Something to the effect of "Bono, (born 10 May 1960), legal name Paul David Hewson, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2." The only issue to contend with then is how do we add in KBE because his legal name doesn't end in KBE. Chupper 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an unusual case, because despite his entitlement to be addressed as "Mr Paul Hewson KBE", there is virtually no circumstance in practice under which he would be so addressed. If he became a member of the Irish Parliament, or held some important public office such as UN Secretary-General, I suppose he would then be generally known as Paul Hewson rather than Bono, and then he'd be "Paul Hewson KBE" - but that hasn't happpened and may never happen. If he were a witness at a trial and asked to state his full name, it would be simply "Paul David Hewson". Maybe in the Honours section we could say that he is entitled to add the postnominal KBE to his legal name in some contexts, and leave it at that, ie. without specifying what those contexts might be. JackofOz 06:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I like Chupper's most recent suggestion (ie, "Bono, (born 10 May 1960), legal name Paul David Hewson, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2.", and Jack's suggestion about the KBE make sense to me too. I'd say go with that unless on the off chance someone comes up with a better brainwave. The only suggestion is to maybe say something like "original" (or "birth name") with or without "legal", but you've already suggested is a million times better. Merbabu 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ya, Merbabu keeps coming up with all the good ideas. I agree that "legal" may not be the best way to introduce his legal name. I looked all over Wikipedia for articles that have already done what we are trying to do. I found that the John Wayne article may set a good precedent here. So based upon everyone's ideas how does "Bono, born 10 May 1960 as Paul David Hewson, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2." sound? Why don't we have a minivote here and see what everyone thinks. If this were the sentence to be used I also think we should expand the stage name section to include information on how this is his nickname, everyone calls him that, etc. Chupper 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree strongly with the "Bono, born 10 May 1960 as Paul David Hewson,..." suggestion. -- Renesis (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Being a traditionalist, I believe that an encyclopaedic entry or formal address must use one's real and full name and title. Who's Who (UK) lists him as Hewson, P.D. (with a redirect from Bono). In my opinion the opening paragraph must name him as Paul David Hewson, KBE (he has accepted the award of KBE so has agreed to use the post-nominals in formal address) with an immediate mention of his chosen moniker. But I know that Wikipedia tends to have its own way of doing things so I won't die in a ditch over it. -- Delsource (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to rush out to a meeting - but I will post back with some thoughts on this later. Meanwhile - why don't we look for ideas from how other such articles handle this. eg Sting and others. Where there is a single name - not in any way related to the persons birth or legal name (eg Prince is part of his real name so that doesn't help so much) Davidpatrick 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you were probably in a rush as you said, but I already looked at other articles. If you read above you can reference the John Wayne in regards to my recommendation.Chupper 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard WP format is "Legal Name (born 1 January 1950), known as Nickname, is...". As far as I can see, there's no reason why this should be different. (Obviously slightly different wording is possible, and perhaps here "known by his stage name as" rather than simply "known as" would be appropriate, but generally the legal name goes first in any event.) Proteus (Talk) 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the standard WP format. I couldn't find that. Anyway, there are a few reasons here "why this should be different." People argue that his stage name is more than a stage name. It is a nick name (since he was a kid), a stage name (as well all know uses it all the time in the band), and is known almost universally by it today. So how do we get all this information in there? Or how do we handle all that? That's part of the problem and that is why we need a resolution. Other editors here are expressing concern with using the word nickname while others are concerned that we are using the word stage name. I know I'm concerned because "almost universally known by his stage name" is becoming a really long introduction.
Basically the difference here is that it's three things, and it is not just a stage name. If his wife calls him Bono it's different then Prince making up a new stage name every week. So, what do you recommend? Chupper 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If he's known by it, and you don't want to say "nickname" or "stage name", just say "known as Bono", which is undeniably true and quite short. Proteus (Talk) 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Although i prefer to lead with "Bono" before his original name, if "bono" must come after, then i agree with Proteus - don't use nickname or stage name. Just say known as Bono. It's both the most accurate and concise statement. Merbabu 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I also prefer to lead with Bono, but policy is policy. Simply saying "known as Bono" would be pretty much just as good, in my opinion.Chupper 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not necessarily a "standard" that fits every situation. See also Cher. -- Renesis (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is called Bono, no other explanation is needed, SqueakBox 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. So I assume the new proposal is "Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), known as Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2. " Are we a go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chupper (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Works for me, almost every single pop article I checked that is similar to this (sting Madonna_(entertainer) Dido_(singer)) uses their legal name and adds the stage name afterwards in some form (which itself could do with standardised wording but that's a more general mater) Alci12 11:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Drop the KBE. It's just not necessary. It can be mentioned later as we discussed above. Merbabu 11:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things. I was in favor of the qualifier "almost universally" (which only adds 2 words) for the sake of strict accuracy. Thinking that there might be some family members who still call him "Paul". Much as Sting's wife calls Sting "Gordon". But if people think that that is too pedantic or unnecessary (or that two words is just too much!) then - forgo that part.

But the other part "known by his stage name" I think IS important. How he ACQUIRED the name - and the fact that it STARTED as a nickname is neither here nor there in the intro paragraph - and is ably dealt with in the article. But in an encyclopedia which has to serve people who might not have heard of him as well as those who do - where a name is not visibly remotely an adaptation of the original birth name (such as "James Paul McCartney - known as Paul McCartney) I think it IS incumbent to state that the "known by" is a stage name. I accept that it STARTED as a nickname. But since about 1979 it has been a professional stage name - which he uses in all parts of his daily life. But it is a stage name. Unless he changes his name by deed poll (which is what Bob Dylan and Elton John have done - I think it is necessary to state that.

So I think it should read:

Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), known by his stage name Bono, is the lead singer... Davidpatrick 14:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

hmmm - you allude to the fact that it is indeed more than simply a stage name, it's not that narrow. And the article is not just about Bono 'professionally' - it's what people know him as (professionally and personally) - including his wife. I'm not sure how a broader term, every day nickname becomes subservient to the narrower, professiona context 'stagename'. If we agree (as you seem to) that 'stagename' is too narrow a definition, why use it? Bono is not even a nickname, it's become, long ago, his name. Merbabu 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How ever his name and moniker are represented, I absolutely disagree with dropping 'KBE' from his full name. Fact is it is now part of his formal name and title which he acknowledged when he accepted the award. -- Delsource (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for his specific 'acknowledgement' of the title? Or are you suggesting it is simply an implied acknowledgement? Merbabu 14:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If you accept the award you acknowledge the title. This article doesn't state he has rejected the award. -- Delsource (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Acceptance mean automatic acknowledgement according to who? I doubt someone will reject the award simply because they don't want to use the title. Is he referred to anywhere else with such a title? Or are we connecting a few too many dots of our own? Merbabu 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
But what is the alternative? Do we insist on two sources for every single person with a state award: one for acceptance of the award; a second for acknowledgement of the title or post-nominal? Individuals may choose not to use titles and post-nominals in every day or informal life (such on mail, bank documents, domestic bills etc) but that doesn't mean that they are not still formally a Knight (including honorary), or have a CBE, CMG etc. I think it would be correct for an enyclopaedia to give a formal name and title as recognised "at Court". -- Delsource (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, recognised by who? The British, right? at Court? Merbabu 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"At court" doesn't mean "the British". Anyway, Bono has accepted an award from the British Crown so please leave the tired old politics out of this matter. When I say "at court" clearly I mean in formal circles - including diplomatically and by sovereign governments, international institutions etc. Most countries recognise the state awards of others (including the British system by the Republic of Ireland). The likes of Who's Who and any traditional encyclopaedia will list honours and use them correctly. Why do Wikipedians always have to look for different ways of doing things? -- Delsource (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK guys. This is getting out of hand! It is getting hard to count the colons!!! I'm just joking :). This is actually a really important discussion/argument we are having here. Those just joining in here will notice we are discussing the use of "KBE" and how we should introduce's Bono's nick/stage almost universally known as name :). Personally I've never understood using "KBE" on Wikipedia to introduce someone, but for some reason, I always leave it in. My logic for doing so probably has something to do with how stupid I am when it comes to this stuff and the fact that others are smarter than me. Either way I won't really address this topic, but I will address the nick name, stage name, known as stuff. I feel like we should still change the sentence to "Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), known as Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2." I also feel we should change the stage name section to "Stage and nickname" and we should also elaborate on this information in the first sentence of that section. I guess I'm sticking with the "keep it simple stupid" ideaology here. I just feel like the intro or 0 section summarizes the rest of the article, and we can adequately do that by simply saying "known as Bono" in the introduction and elaborating on it in the appropriate section. It seems as if everyone is sticking semi-close to this idea... What do we think? Are we a go or is there more to discuss? Chupper 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
One more thing. I do not support using the irish spelling of his name in the introductory sentence. Bono speaks in English. He sings in English. I think I read somewhere he doesn't even really speak Irish. Even if he knew Irish I've never heard of him being addressed under that name. I'll be removing it. If someone disagrees on this point, let me know and we'll throw it into the things to discuss in this growing discussion. Chupper 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I added the Irish version of Bono's name becasue here in Ireland Irish is constitutionally our first language and it is very common to address people in their Irish name, even if their name is in fact in the English language. WHats everyone's feeling on the matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derry Boi (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Oops, forgot to sign. Derry Boi 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it comes under Wikipedia's rules about "Original Reasearch" - i.e. it's just something you made up. If someone was born in England and given an Irish name, you wouldn't make up an English version of their name for either the Irish or English wikipedia. Note that the Irish wikipedia's entry for Bono starts "Is é Paul David Hewson príomhamhránaí an bhanna ceoil raic, U2". Even on that Wikipedia, an entry for a translation of his name would be original research, which isn't allowed.
Also - It is not very common to be addressed by an Irish version of one's name when in Ireland. In most of Ireland it is very uncommon. Irish is the first language of the Republic constitutionally, but not in terms of use. NotMuchToSay 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I still favor the reference to stage name in the first line - but I'll abide by consensus. Keep KBE. We are an encyclopedia. And he didn't decline the award. He announced that he was pleased to have been awarded. So he accepted it. However - one thing I'm stronger on is that the section about his informal name should be called just Stage name not Stage and Nick Name. He is a professional entertainer/artist - who would never heard of were it not for his being an entertainer/artist. He GOT the stage name because it had been a nickname. But when it became his stage name - and then supplanted his given name in practically all circumstances - it went way beyond being a nickname. If he was still Paul a lot of the time - and sometimes people called him Bono - then "Bono" would be a nickname. But (like Sting, and like Elton John before he changed his name by deed poll) Bono has now become his virtual name. And the best description of that for an entertainer/artist is stage name. (We could call it his "showbiz name" if anyone prefers!  ;) Davidpatrick 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Chupper's suggestion of changing the lead to "Paul David Hewson, KBE (born 10 May 1960), known as Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2.". "Almost universally" sounds way too awkward, and the "stage name" reference isn't really needed (BTW, Bono got the nickname prior to his carreer in U2 - and, if I'm not mistaken, he's credited on Boy as "Paul 'Bono' Hewson"). We could change he section name, but I don't think it's necessary. The Irish name seems a little too much indeed.
About the KBE, I agree it should stay. A quick look at other articles on people with similiar titles (like Brian May and Paul McCartney) show that it's already common usage in Wikipedia. Besides, people's titles are usually included in the lead section (see Pope Benedict XVI and Charles, Prince of Wales). --Kristbg 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if we may have all come to a decent compromise. Hopefully everyone is partially happy. I know this wasn't what I was originally looking for, but I feel it should work perfectly. It also appears that we should keep the KBE in. Whether or not it should be hyperlinked is another story. Also Derry Boi proposed putting in the irish version of his name. I know I did not support it, but we have yet to get other opinions. If we did put it in the sentence would read "Paul David Hewson, KBE (Irish): Pól Mac Aodha) (born 10 May 1960), known as Bono, is the lead singer and principal lyricist of the Irish rock band U2." What are our thoughts? Chupper 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Irish (I'm from the other side of the planet), but after a 22-year obsession with U2 I have never seen this. My understanding is this is simply a translation? Thus it is not mean it is significant. I've never seen it used.Merbabu 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Nor me. Without a reference showing that he actually uses this name in some contexts (which would be odd since he hardly ever even uses Paul Hewson), this would be original research on our part (and particularly dopey OR at that). JackofOz 09:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with the compromise. Don't put in the Irish translation. At most that would go in Trivia - IF there's any evidence of it being used in Ireland. Keep the section on his name as just titled "Stage name" Davidpatrick 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has deleted "KBE" from the opener. Looking at this string I cannot see that such an edit is supported by the general comments. Is there a point to these exercises when someone comes along and decides to delete something for no apparent reason and in contravention of a hard-worked consensus? 86.17.211.191 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It was not. Squeakbox for some reason (as you can see above) put in his own consensus midway through the discussion and changed the structure to what he wanted. Again, it looks like he, for the second time, ignored our discussion, deleted my note, and changed it to what he wanted again. Maybe if he were Jimmy Wales I wouldn't complain, but he isn't :). JackofOz left a message on his talk page though and reminded him he is always allowed to leave his arguments here. Chupper 14:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is somewhat misplaced as I left my comment here on the 30th. I removed KBE because it was in bold, implyiong all sorts of pov stuff but now it isnt in bold I left it. I am opposed to editors claimming nobody can come in fresh and chenge the first sentence, that is not wikipedia policy, SqueakBox 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox there is nothing wrong with you wanting to change something. The problem here is that we had an edit war and a discussion regarding the topic. See: WP:DR I did note that you left your comment here. The problem was that you left a vague comment and then ignored the current discussion and changed it to what you wanted. If our goal is to resolve an edit war through discussion, and there is no problem for someone to ignore the discussion and put in what they want, then why have a discussion in the first place??? Due to the volatility of the introductory sentence I, and I'm sure others, would consider it to be in bad taste to ignore a consensus. Remember, there is nothing wrong with wanting to change or disagree with something. But in these types of situations, following an edit war and a successful discussion from several editors, the best way to make changes is to discuss them first. Chupper 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of the "Personal life" paragraph

Are we sure that the article is best served by the "Personal life' paragraph being so high up? Looking at many other articles I think it might make more sense lower down the article. After the U2 and humanitarian sections. It's valid information - but it's less central. Given that he didn't get married before U2 was well established - it doesn't even follow any chronology being so high up on the page. Thoughts? Davidpatrick 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea I kind of agree. It seems Biographies which are chronological for entertainers are listed first. I've seen a few articles with "Early life" first and "Personal life" near the end. I'd say do that. Change "Biography" to "Early life" and convert their current subsections regular sections. Then move "Personal life" to the end, inbetween Humanitarian work & Praise & criticism. The only thing then is to figure out where to throw Stage name. Chupper 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Just thought I'd add another link for the criticism I saw of U2 moving their intellectual property to Holland to avoid paying taxes in Ireland.

The article is entitled 'Gimme Tax Shelter' from the New York Times link - http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1FFC395B0C778CDDAB0894DF404482 Unfortunately the abstract doesn't have much information but the article itself criticised the hypocracy of asking governments to give foreign aid while at the same time they rich were avoiding paying those taxes by moving some operations to Holland ZeroRPM 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey ZeroRPM. I'm not sure if you mean you just wanted to link here or if you wanted to add a link to the article....? If you wanted to put the link in external links of the article, I'm not sure that would be a good idea per WP:EL. If you wanted to add it in as another reference for that sentence in criticism, I guess you could, but that sentence is already referenced two times. Chupper 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit more criticism, too, and methinks that the criticism section probably ought to be split up into humanitarian and other or just plain criticism. Seattle times article [1] from 4 february 07 lists his business dealings more in depth, including the fact that Bono never discloses any charitable donations to the groups he promotes and the venezeulan government's formal protest against elevation's partnership with pandemic. Will change level 2 headline if no-one protests. --Chalyres 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many would actually suggest that not disclosing charitable donations is a good thing. I know i don't (not that I'm comparing my ability to donate with Bono's). If he did "disclose" he'd be crucified and then we'd really have something to put in. I don't see why anyone is obliged to say what they donate. Even so, a newspaper makes a criticism - does that mean it's notable in this encyclopedia? Merbabu 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Merbabu. Look at my own personal policy on this subject here. Is it really representative enough of our world to put it in an encyclopedia? Chupper 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, i understand, but disagree. I personally don't care either way if he discloses or donates, but we're not supposed to criticise or not criticise according to our own opinions. the newspaper, as far as i am aware, is covering a criticism (something that i've heard often said), not initiating one. And news-sources are used all the time as one of the few current sources of coverage of current debate on a subject. I've thouroughly read through your unwarranted criticism section, chupper, and while i see your point and concern about such criticism, i'm curious as to whose world you mean when you talk about representation above? and if you remember, what i'm suggesting here is either removing the word "humitarian" from the criticism section to include the venzeulan government's criticism and also to address the fact that the tax move is not just criticised for humanitarian reasons. Bono will survive the criticism, don't worry, it just seems rather dishonest not to include well-covered criticism of the follow fellow, no matter how much we like him. There's also the matter of der spiegal's criticism of his support for the ethiopian head while dissidents were being imprisoned. not covering the criticism might look biased itself. --Chalyres 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hey Chalyres! Thanks for taking the time to read my little personal policy. I wrote it to minimize the time I have to spend arguing points I argue over and over and over. Sometimes I feel like it was a waste to even put that together. Anyway though, what I consider notable enough to be mentioned, or as I said above "representative enough of our world to put in an encyclopedia" is basically this, taken from my unwarranted criticism policy - Criticism sections should only include feelings of people if they were big enough to make an impact on the topic at hand or were a major reason for the topic's becoming noticed. I basically mean if a criticism point was notable enough to influence the subject, here Bono, in some way (either his reputation, actions, etc.) OR if the criticism brought on more attention the subject (like a scandal), it should be mentioned. This philosophy pretty much deals with any topic on Wikipedia positive or negative. However, the main reason I created this criticism essay was in response to people who throw in their own original research and use weasel words like there is no tomorrow (or in other words, they use Wikipedia to voice their opinions).

How to proceed

I'm aware, and appreciate that that is not you, Chalyres, so let me go into some more detail about my stance. First let me say I'm usually incorrect :). Second, let me say that I really don't know much about this topic. For these reasons, please don't give me any type of authoritative position - I don't deserve it. If you find say - 2, 3, or 4 sources covering a specific issue criticising Bono, I say add & reference it (and maybe include up to two or three inline cites for the added sentence, so people like me don't attack it right away). I also agree about renaming the section. But how about just "criticism" and split up the paragraphs - one dealing with humanitarian, the other dealing with whatever else. I still say keep it brief, and well referenced, though.

A word of caution

Now I hope my next comment won't offend anyone here, I really don't mean to do that. But, you'll notice the bulk of the conversation of this page here is talking about how to introduce Bono and how to deal with criticism stuff. I always appreciate ANY contributions made and I think it really helps Wikipedia progress, however a lot of people (not just on this article) seem to always want to add in criticism instead of contributing stuff to the core of the article. Sometimes I just wish we'd all be discussing what information to put into Bono's musical career section or something like that. You'll notice a lot of Wikipedia article's content is like 50% in the criticism section - and these will be big starts like Madonna, Bono, etc. That to me is embarrassing to Wikipedia. It reflects that Wikipedia, to some, is a soapbox and not an encyclopedia. Often times I find myself writing content for articles I don't have very much interest in (i.e. Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). I only do it to get rid of NPOV content, use references, add in the information that everyone knows is important but is too lazy to put in, and keep Wikipedia somewhat reputable. Again, I don't mean to attack you Chalyres, you're actually a cool headed guy making a reputable argument. I guess you just got me started on a rant :). So I say go for it, keep it brief. Sorry for such a long response. Chupper 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

split the section into two paragraphs. i like the additional description at least for now, but the defense statement may be a bit overlong and i see Chupper's point about how far the rabbit hole can go...--Chalyres 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

With people like Chalyres around, I no longer worry so much about the criticism section getting out of control. :) He also brought up a good point that criticism sections on Wikipedia are probably the only place you can find a unified source on the subject. I really won't object to his or anyone else's changes or additions to the criticism sections as long as they are referenced and it doesn't grow too long. Even if you are worried, as Wikipedia says "Be BOLD!" To everyone else out there - feel free to add whatever you like to criticism. At worst what would happen is someone would remove it. I don't mean to scare people away from editing. Happy editing - Chupper 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism edit

Cleaned up addition to criticism section (recent petition to extend copyright to 95 years) by SlaineMacRoth. good addition, pretty fair, added self-contained mitigation to avoid "defenders counter that" by including that it was signed by 4500 other artists. I think that should be enough to balance it. --Chalyres 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

As of March 23rd this section is filled with weasel words. Can the editors of this text get this cleaned up? Avoid words like "Critics say" and "critics point out". Refer to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

In addition, this sentence is redundant - "Bono is known for campaigning against third-world debt and has written a forward to The End of Poverty, a book by economist Jeffrey Sachs that calls for increased foreign aid by industrialized countries to developing countries. This aid money...". We have a whole section dedicated to this cause.

I'll be chopping stuff out again. If you're not happy about something being removed, then don't use weasel words when you add it back in. Chupper 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes. Feel free to discuss those changes here. Chupper 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Billthekid77's footnote

Hey guys, I need your help answering something. I reverted his edit once, but he restored it again, so I thought I would get some consensus from the group before changing it again.

Billthekid77 insists on adding, after "KBE", the footnote stating "As an Irishman, Bono is ineligible for a full honour and so holds an honorary KBE." I don't feel this is relevant, and if it is we should place it elsewhere in the article. Every other footnote is citing a source, except for this one, and that may confuse readers. Your thoughts? Chupper 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or do other wikipedians believe that it's just a tad anglocentric that a parochial British title like "KBE" is being placed after the name of an international figure as if, in the finely tuned nationalism of the species, he must have some British connection imposed upon him simply because he is successful? 89.100.195.42 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Chupper..the KBE link needs to have a quick reference after it to clearly explain that Bono's award was honarary...readers shouldn't need to go scrolling and searching for this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthekid77 (talk • contribs)

You're not the only one to think that way (or at least similar), but the lead has been discussed to death. Merbabu 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The footnote reference is not quite right. Please note first the following info about knighthoods for non-Brits

Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights and Dames Commander who are not subjects of the Queen (i.e. not citizens of the United Kingdom or another country ruled by the Queen) are not entitled to the prefix "Sir" or "Dame", but may still use the post-nominal abbreviations. For example, American Bill Gates was made a Knight Commander of the British Empire is not entitled "Sir William" or "Sir William Gates III", but may use "William Henry Gates III, KBE". Honorary knights do not receive the accolade. If recipients later become subjects of the Queen then they are entitled to begin using the Sir prefix as well.

The footnote currently says:

As an Irishman, Bono is ineligible for a full honour and so holds an honorary KBE.

I think it should read something like this. (It's a bit long - but it's a complex point. And this is in the reference section):

KBE is the official suffix for the award Bono received from Her Majesty The Queen in 2007. (Honorary Knight Commander Of The British Empire). Recipients who are not British subjects are entitled to use the suffix "KBE" - but not the prefix "Sir"

Hope this helps!!! Davidpatrick 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having the reference. It explains something that seems to confuse many readers (and editors). --Kristbg 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I left on Billthekid77's talk page:
Please stop putting in the "reference" that Bono cannot use the sir title. Why?
#Did you notice the big blue bright letters that say "KBE"? - if someone clicks on it and reads the article, they will know "Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights and Dames Commander who are not subjects of the Queen (i.e. not citizens of the United Kingdom or another country ruled by the Queen) are not entitled to the prefix "Sir" or "Dame", but may still use the post-nominal abbreviations."
#The intro paragraph, even with your awkard footnote, is not the place to explain this. If you feel compelled to add it in, the recognition section would be the place to do it.
#We aren't using sir in the rest of the article, so explaing this is unnecessary.
Chupper 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer KBE and this footnote not being there, but I will definitely live if it is there. Chupper 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Part of the trouble is that the British honors system is complex. The "KBE" article is NOT very clear. Esp. for non-Brits. The part about honorary titles and usage of prefixes and suffixes is buried in the article. And written in formal language eg but may still use the post-nominal abbreviations. Also - tabloid media (even in UK) further confuse matters by using the "Sir" prefix in headlines about Bono and Bob Geldof. So people see "Sir Bob" and "Sir Bono" in headlines - and don't realize that it is an incorrect, colloquial headline writer's usage. Davidpatrick 14:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Bono a Celtic fan?

I heard that Bono was an avid Celtic FC fan and once tried to purchase the club, along with the rest of U2 and Rod Stewart, once upon a time. Is this true? If it is does anyone think that there should be a section on this or at least should be mentioned somewhere?TammiMagee 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just want to make sure you're not confusing it with Larry Mullen being a fan of the Republic of Ireland national football team... If you are right, it might be notable enough to mentioned if he tried to purchase it. It could be thrown up in "Other endeavours", but we'd probably want a source or two before its added. Chupper 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No i'm not getting confused with that because Bono probably supports them, aswell as Larry Mullen, as he was born in the Republic of Ireland. Plus Celtic FC is a Scottish team. My husband is a celtic fan and he thinks that Bono and all of U2 are celtic fans. I dont know where to get info on this.TammiMagee 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found some reliable sources on the topic and have added a paragragh under 'Other Endeavours'. I have included 3 references too.TammiMagee 14:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome addition. Thanks for adding references! Chupper 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing "lead singer" to "frontman" in lead sentence

I know the lead sentence is often a touchy subject, for good reasons, so I'm posting this change here. I'm changing the words "lead singer" to "frontman" and adding a link. Using "frontman" indicates he is the lead singer and implies the most famous member out of the group as well as the one who "[communicates] with the audience between songs".

I'll be making the changes. If you disagree, feel free to discuss here. Chupper 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "frontman" does apply to Bono in a strict literal way - but I must say that as a word it's just a bit tabloid-ese rather than encyclopedic. A bit casual. It's like the way a 60's British fanzine writes things like "the boys haven't enjoyed much success States-side" (meaning America). Or describing a girl singer as a "songstress". Or referring to a drummer as someone who "rattles the traps". It's just too faux-showbiz familiar. While Bono IS the most prominent member - the band do regard themselves as a quartet of equals (as the Beatles did). So I think the word is not the ideal choice. Just my 2 cents. Davidpatrick 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Although i take Chupper's point about being the leader and most famous, I agree that 'frontman' is a bit tabloidy and unencyclopedic, and thus not a good change. But, keep up your (otherwise) good work Chupper. is there another way to get that leader concept into the article? Does it have to be in the first sentence? It can be expanded on later in the article or even lead (if it is not already).Merbabu 15:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Good points guys. I agree. Yea, maybe we could illustrate this somewhere else. Either way, I've reverted back to "lead singer" on the lead sentence. Chupper 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's better this way. Your hard work on the article is much appreciated. Davidpatrick 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hat Trip

I'm curious as to why the "criticism" inclusion of the hat trip incident (flying his favorite hat to a gig via a first class seat) was eliminated from the article. This was a fairly big media flap, and was an insight into Bono's megalomaniacal and hypocritical personality. Tokalon73 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tokalon, please add new text to the bottom.
If I deleted it its mostly likely because it wasn't referenced. Even if it was referenced I'm not sure it's important enough to be mentioned. I don't remember deleting it though... Chupper 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, the hat trip never happened, and was a myth created by the media. Phillies26 02:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But, what about the time he flew in his favourite pair of socks in a private lear jet. I think that should go in for NPOV. I read it somewhere. ;-) Merbabu 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

This section popped up recently. I propose we delete it and merge relevant information into other parts of the article. I'm basing this proposal off of WP:TRIV. Thoughts? Chupper 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Full agreement. The word 'trivia' comes from the word 'trivial' (obviously) and this means non-notable (even if interesting) and thus has no place in an encyclopedia. There are two ways to remove trivia: (1) simply remove non-notable info and (2) put actually notable info into the main article. Trivia sections should be actively removed. In articles like this that have no recent history of trivia sections they should be dealt with quickly as they can grow like weeds. Merbabu 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bono's old-ugly image

the image that is right now represting Bono in the entry, is 7 years old now and doesn't represent him in any near present (not that every month we'll need a new image, but this is one is not actual/cool at all) Now, I emailed NAACP for permission to use Bono's promo image took there this year (2007). They answered my email saying it was ok if it was for information/promo propuses. In fact, here is the image, but as you can see, it is still copyrighted but they agree to allow its use here, but I just read the note to editors, saying "Any fair use photos (i.e. "promotional photos") are copyright violations and will be deleted." which contradicts what I'm saying, so, can I (with their permission already) or someone change that old freakin image or can't we? Thanks for your help. -FCA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fca780 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I would love to change "that old freakin image" too, trust me, but we're bound by copyright rules and Wikipedia policy. The bottom line is that image cannot be used, because we have a free licensed image of him on the main page now. The fact that the new one looks a lot better than the current one is not a good enough reason to replace it, from the perspective of Wikipedia policy.
What we need: It would be great if Bono logged in and uploaded an image of himself adding a {{PD-self}} tag to it, but thats probably not going to happen :). So, we have to rely on someone taking a picture of him who releases all rights to it, and allows it to be used anywhere. There are a few good avenues where we could get such images, and these include: a picture taken by the U.S. federal government of Bono (we have one with Pres. Bush, but the last time I checked there were none with just him), photos uploaded to Flickr with all copyrights released, or someone on Wikipedia who snaps a picture of him backstage or somewhere else that's decent enough to put in the infobox. Chupper 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh, can't we just crop the Bono/Bush picture then? --Kristbg 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think so, yes. I actually thought about doing that one time. I was concerned about how it would look, with just his head in that position, and also the resolution of the source picture isn't that great. I remember thinking at the time it wouldn't be any better then the one we have. Maybe I was wrong though, you can feel free to mess with it. Chupper 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made two attempts to crop the Bono/Bush picture, here and here. Any thoughts on which looks better? --Kristbg 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What about this picture? It was took by a U2's fan recently and she is gving permission too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fca780 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
I think both are good. We would need to confirm that the concert pic is free - ie, is the copyright symbol in the pic going to be an issue? I like the cropped pic too, but we should leave that in its context with Bush for the relevant part of the article - only use it cropped if we run into troubles with the concert pic. --Merbabu 02:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the concert pic is free, that copyright thing in the corner is something the phographer put on, but it isn't real, go to the website (from were the image was taken) and you'll see that she has it with copyright, though it is not really legal, what I mean is that I asked there if she has any legal copyright on the website or the pcitures and she told me she hasn't even though, she puts that stuff on them, just is case. Anyway, here is another good picture, from U2's latest show, asked for permission to the fan who took it, from the website u2-vertigo-tour.com --Fca780 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bono honolulu.jpg

Tina Vanbeveren's permission is not sufficient, alone, to allow us to use the image on Wikipedia. We need her to release all rights of the image and to release it into the public domain or keep the copyright in her name and allow the image to be used for any purpose.

What needs to be done.

  1. Author needs to be contacted.
  2. She needs to:
    1. Release the image into the public domain or
    2. Keep the copyright and allow the image to be used for any purpose.
  3. After such information is released, we need to switch the tag to {{PD-author|Tina Vanbeveren}} or {{Copyrighted free use}} dependent upon which she picks.

Chupper 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the author and I'm waiting for a response. Chupper 13:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The author is willing to allow Wikipedia to use this image, but because this image is being used in other projects they cannot allow anyone to use it for any purpose (release all rights). Therefore this image cannot be used on Wikipedia and will be deleted. Chupper 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The author has contacted me again allowing the work to be used for any purpose. I've changed the licensing information on the image page to reflect this. I'll be switching the image back to the main page here. Chupper 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks! --Kristbg 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.