Talk:U2/Archive 1

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 1 GA 2 "Hard Rock" 3 RE: Too much opinion 4 Too much opinion 5 Irish band? 6 Peter Martin? 7 Clichés 8 No good 9 How many albums have U2 sold? 10 Picture 11 Most popular band 12 I will follow 13 paragraph 14 Vertigo Tour 15 Nobel Prize 'nominee' 16 Missing / stolen notes from the October Album? 17 That sound sample sucks. 18 Greatest Band in the World 19 What kind of rock? 20 The Names of members: 21 Sunday Bloody Sunday 22 The Hands That Built America 23 non-NPOV on last 2 albums 24 Discography/Track Listing 25 Original Soundtracks No. 1 26 Have U2 disowned October? 27 Too POV 28 Removal of * from F*ck 29 Fansite churn 30 Page name 31 Formation date? 32 Next Album Recordings (2006 - 2007) 33 Mercy 34 Taking out the Montreal bit 35 Vertigo Tour article 36 Hall of Fame 37 Where's Batman Forever single? 38 Vandalism 39 NPOV to a fault 40 Universal Music 41 U2 & Hip Hop?! 42 Funny fact! 43 American Perspective 44 Clichés 45 u2.com hacking?? 46 General info on U2 47 Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

GA

Good job to everyone who helped with this article, it is now a GA.False Prophet 18:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks! --Kristbg 18:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Hard Rock"

I deleted "hard rock" from the genre of U2 because they simply are not a hard rock band.

-RattleandHum 5:17, 28 April 2006 (EST).

RE: Too much opinion

Somebody has edited your mentioned line, Kristbg. Thanks for bringing that up.

-Wikipedia Stubmechanic 10:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better now! Relevant, informative and non-POV. I still have a problem with that "U2 and the Stones" section, though... --Kristbg 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Too much opinion

"U2 is the biggest rock band in the world today..." Really? I think the Rolling Stones and even the Who may have something to say about that. The use of that line should have no place in an encyclopaedia. Let's deal in facts, not fan-speak.

Oh, but we tried to take it out. A lot of us did. --Kristbg 22:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish band?

They are an Irish/English (Anglo-Irish) band. Adam Clayton is from Oxford, for goodness sake.

To add to this The Edge was born in Essex to Welsh parents.

Have to disagree with you there. I guess it depends on the fine print under your definition of "Irish band", but please consider the following:

All four lads were raised from a young age in Ireland, depsite Edge and Adam being born in England.

As a band they formed and developed within Ireland, regardless of individual places of birth.

They've always identified themselves as such. For example, Bono used to introduce "Bad" saying: "We're an Irish band. We come from Dublin City, Ireland."

My 2 cents. --U2met86 06:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

agreed. All four grew up in Ireland. They continue to live in Ireland. Only 2 were born in another country and moved to Ireland at a very early age. They themselves identify as being Irish. Alternatively, we could change the article to U2 is 99% Irish, 0.75% English and 0.25% Whelsh. ;) --Merbabu 04:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, calling them Anglo-Irish is a bit absurd. I like your suggestion, Merbabu, I mean, if we're going to be absurd, let's go all the way. Seriously, though, they're Irish, so let's just leave it at that. Oh, and there's only one h in Welsh. --Charles 05:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Martin?

What is your source for Peter Martin being in U2? I've read many U2 biographies and I've never even read that name. MrTroy 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for citing a source. MrTroy 19:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Clichés

Another cliché-ridden music article. Can't people write articles on music without sounding like a rock magazine? This is meant to be an encyclopædia, not a music magazine. FearÉIREANN 23:07, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No good

• evidence U2 isn't good:

http://u2.com/av/vplayer.php?vid=46&video_player[format]=w&video_player[quality]=h

a dodgy video from the early 80's and dodgy haircuts tells us nothing!

How many albums have U2 sold?

I am curious to find out how many albums U2 has sold total and per album.

Estimations are around 100 million+ albums. The Joshua Tree went 10X platinum, Achtung Baby was 8X. Both numbers are in the US. --69.145.122.209 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Ehh... this article needs a picture. I've looked in a good few of the PDISs but with no luck. Anyone else had any luck? It takes from the article not to know what they look like. Ludraman | Talk 23:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about a image now? --ThomasK 06:12, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Most popular band

Is it widely enough agreed that they were one of the most popular bands of the 80s and 90s to let that assertion stand, or will it need to be attrbiuted? Jwrosenzweig 00:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The phrasing of "were one of the most popular blah blah" sort of makes it sound like U2 are a thing of the past. Let's not forget the multi-million copies of "All That You Can't Leave Behind" that were sold, and the multiple Grammy trophies the LP grabbed over a two year period. I'd argue they are still fairly popular. Dreampunk

U2 is still one of the popular bands, maybe the most famous band. And I agree-this article needs a picture.--ThomasK 18:09, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I will follow

Why is this single listed twice?--Will2k 14:52, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

paragraph

The started to practice a lot in the high school gym. As more practice went by, they all realized that Bono did not know how to play the guitar and couldn't sing that well either. The other three talked about kicking him out of the band and finding somebody else, but there was just something about Bono's energy that made them decide to keep him./

Is this a hoax, is´nt? --ThomasK 07:26, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's an apparent copyvio, that I've reverted twice now. Intellectual property issues aside, it is still profoundly unsuited for Wikipedia and inferior to what was already there. Tuf-Kat 07:35, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the above (bono nearly kicked out of the band) is true, but the whole section is probable copyvio, and certainly not that well written. Plus the boxed source link was completely inappropriate. Zocky 14:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vertigo Tour

I am trying to add a section stating the changes that the band has mde from its campaigning ideals to it acceptance of commercialism. I was then called a vandal. Is this a fan site or a facts page?

A facts page. Your addition wasn't facts, it was the equivalent of a letter to the editor; and as such, it was (rightly) deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. Kinitawowi 16:55, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Damm can someone put up a picture of the band!! I did so a while back and it was taken down for some unknown reason.

Nobel Prize 'nominee'

It seems foolish to include it here, because anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel prize. It also seems somewhat aggrandizing and irrelevant, if you ask me. Orangetuesday 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't find it interesting that Bono is the only person ever to be nominated for an Oscar, a Grammy, a Golden Globe and the Nobel Peace Prize? :-) source (I do think that this is an interesting bit of trivia, but that if it belongs anywhere it should be on Bono's article rather than the band's) Aidje 14:32, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nominations are sealed for 50 years, so I don't see how we could know that he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. -Eel 08:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobel prize nominations can't come from just anyone, but thousands of people, including member of any national legislature or government and many university professors, have nomination rights, so being proposed for the prize is no distinction in itself and that means that there are usually between 100 and 200 officially accepted nominees, often including some preposterous choices (e.g. Ariel Sharon, George W. Bush, Muammar Qaddafi). Nominators often publicize their own nominees. I think it's worth noting but within this context. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it belongs at Bono, not here. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Missing / stolen notes from the October Album?

Should add a mention of the October album problems. From http://www.ticketretriever.com/u2-history-3.html:

"Just when things appeared to go smoothly, Bono realized that he had lost his notes for the songs and the briefcase that stored them while on tour in America. Either his case was stolen by two girls who had entered the studio, or Bono had simply misplaced it, no one really knows. Nevertheless, U2 were sent into a tailspin and the making of their new record became a constant struggle against time and commitment for the band and the producer Steve Lillywhite. U2 had a three week deadline to meet for the new record, which did not allow for much time to write the songs. For each recording session, U2 and the producer were under immense pressure to deliver the results. Bono - "I had a choice, panic or meet the situation. Maybe that's how I should work; every time I put pen to paper my head gets in the way anyhow. The pressure was enormous. Lillywhite himself has said it was the hardest record he has ever worked on in his life. I'd come in and he'd quietly say, "Sing?” I'd say, "no, it's not right today." The pressure was so ridiculous that one day our manager asked Lillywhite if he'd dealt with another band that worked like us. Lillywhite put his head on his hands and sighed". The song "Gloria" tended to reflect this situation, where Bono asks God to help him sing - "I try to speak up/ But only in you I'm complete"."

BTW, these notes did show up fairly recently.

Here's a more accurate article about it: Beautiful day: Women return briefcase to U2

By Lisa Heyamoto Seattle Times reporter

For 23 years, Cindy Harris had a piece of U2's history and a decades-old mystery wrapped in plastic in her Tacoma-area garage. Now, a briefcase stolen from the band in 1981 is back in lead singer Bono's hands, courtesy of a yearlong effort by Harris and her friend Danielle Rhéaume.

The carefully preserved brown briefcase was filched during a Portland performance by two women posing as groupies. In addition to a number of Bono's personal items, it contained a notebook full of lyrics meant for U2's sophomore album, "October." Bono later had to rewrite the lyrics in the studio, and the band called it their worst recording experience.

Harris, 44, found the briefcase in the attic of her Tacoma rental house in 1981 when she moved in. She knew right away that it belonged to the band, she said, but didn't know where it came from or how it got there. Meaning to somehow return it, she put it away but forgot about it amid the demands of starting a family.

About this time last year, she got to talking about the briefcase with her then-co-worker, Rhéaume, 27, a huge U2 fan who knew what the discovery would mean to U2 and its followers. "I just freaked out," Rhéaume said. "That's like, the Holy Grail of U2 history."

The briefcase held love letters between Bono and his now-wife, his American work visa and, of course, the lyrics. There were tour schedules, promotional photos and receipts for $32.95 hotel rooms.

Rhéaume called U2's representatives a number of times, finally arranging to meet Bono in a Portland hotel lobby last Wednesday. She and Harris returned the briefcase and shared a laugh with Bono about the hotel receipts.

"That's a life he hasn't led in a long time," Rhéaume said.

That sound sample sucks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/U2RedemptionSong.ogg

Ok it's short, the sound is highly distorted. Cant someone put up a better U2 sample?

I put another sample, but it has to be between 15 and 20 seconds to fall under fair use, so I can't solve the length problem. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:22, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Greatest Band in the World

Not bad for a crowd of chancers from the Northside! Fergananim

(Sideline here re: the band's name getting flamey, so deleted by creator)

What kind of rock?

U2 is a rock music band, what is their exact genre and/or subgenre of music?User:Lironos

That´s different,for example sometimes they play classic rock,then they play modern rock.--ThomasK 02:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm doing a work on genres and subgenres, so if you are a devoted fan, can you tell me a little about their albums?--Lironos 03:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Boy and October are described by the band themselves as "punk rock" (which I believe is differentiated from "punk"). I'm not sure how I'd describe "War" but that might loosely go under the same "punk rock" banner. Unforgettable Fire is classic rock. As is Joshua Tree although it has a lot of country rock leanings. Rattle & Hum is blues rock (although more rock than blues). Achtung Baby would be modern rock, but with dance, grunge and electronia influences. Zooropa is electronica. POP is again modern rock, but with pop and hip-hop influences. All That... and Dismantle.. are just classic rock.

I don't think classic rock is the phrase to describe any of their albums. When I think of classic rock, I think of Led Zeppelin and the Stones. Definately not U2. I would say the albums you describe as classic rock are maybe a mix of classic rock, folk rock, post-punk rock, and pop. Oh and the Pop album, I would call electronic dance rock. Its not really pop at all. --Nathan 21:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The entries for each individual U2 album list the albums under a "Christian rock album" category that I'm in a bit of disagreement over. I understand that the faith of the members of the band plays an important role, but I don't think I would call, say, Zooropa a "Christian rock album" simply because the members profess a faith in Christianity. Has this been discussed somewhere that I just can't find? --Golfhaus 23:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to call all of them just "rock"... I think the only U2 album that qualifies as a Christian Rock album is October. --Kristbg 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this category was added to all of U2's albums last month by User:Jason Gastrich, who has also included U2 on the Christian rock page. The U2 article mentions the religious aspects of their initial albums and 3 members (all but Adam), but I have a hard time viewing any of their post 1990 work in this category. I'm tempted to delete the "Christian album" category listing, but wonder how far back to go. --Spiffy sperry 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, all the way if you want. The phrase "Christian rock" IMO refers to music which has stayed in the "Christian bubble" (which is much like the "indie bubble", in terms of exclusivity). U2 have definately stayed outside of that bubble. So go ahead and get rid of all those references. --Nathan (Talk) 05:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

When I think of classic rock, I think of Led Zeppelin and the Stones. Definately not U2. That made me laugh when I saw it, that tells me that you, like me, are getting old. Let me explain: I am a U2 fan from way back (can you believe that Joshua Tree is almost 20 years old?!?), and I also have always thought of Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones as classic rock, however, we are at the same point as our parents when Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones made the transition from "contemporary rock" to "classic rock"... The only thing that I can think of is that this now means that we're old. A friend of mine was recently playing music at a birthday party for a bunch of 9 and 10 year olds, he played a song that was popular only 5 or 6 years ago...none of the kids recognized it, and immediately classified it as "old." Yikes! --Easter Monkey 09:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to ruin you're theory here, but I'm 20. I've been into U2 since I was quite young, but I'm not old enough to say "from way back". I'm guessing around Zooropa, but I can't really remember. But I think it'll be a while until U2 fit the genre of classic rock. I mean, they are rock, and they've released some (read as "lots of") classics, but classic rock in the genre sense will have to be redefined, which I'm sure it will in time. Just not now. --Nathan (Talk) 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend, if I took the time to explain myself in much greater detail you'd see that we're on the same side of this one. And yes, I had seen your user page that says you are 20 before I wrote what I did, I maintain that my theory is utterly un-ruined. I'm 30, does that qualify as old? Getting older has a way of sneaking up on you...it's all a gray (grey) area anyway, the Stones are still releasing new albums, does that mean that their new stuff is "rock" while the pre-U2 era, well, pre-disco really, is their "classic rock" stuff? Anyway, enough devil's advocate for today. --Easter Monkey 02:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. You didn't offend. But damn, sneaking up on me already? And yeah, I guess we are on the same side. --Nathan (Talk) 12:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're basing "classic rock" on a sound rather than a time period it seems silly to class Led Zeppelin and the Stones together. Led Zeppelin was all guitar-led hard rock and the beginnings of metal. Rolling Stones was all about blues and rock 'n' roll - indeed, quite similar to Rattle and Hum. I would definitely define Joshua Tree and All That You Can't as classic rock - what else could something like Streets or Walk On be described as? Not sure about Unforgettable Fire though. 130.126.76.27 08:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to point out that Bono doesn't consider U2 a rock band. He thinks U2 is a folk band. A very loud folk band. --69.145.122.209 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer everyone's question, U2 is a post-punk band, contemporaries of Joy Division, Public Image Ltd., and The Virgin Prunes, all of whom had a major influence on the band's sound. They are also occasionally classified as alternative rock out of a general lack of idea of how to classify them. But the best description has always been post-punk. WesleyDodds 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Alternative Rock?? I think U2 are so generic that they are just Rock. I changed their genre description in the ATYCLB article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_That_You_Can%27t_Leave_Behind) from "Alternative Rock" to "Rock". I am happy to be challenged on this IF people can provide decent reasoning. Cheers. --Merbabu 07:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Names of members:

Wikipedia says that:

U2 is an Irish rock band featuring Bono (Paul David Hewson) on vocals and guitar, The Edge (Dave Howard Evans) on guitar and pianos, vocals, and bass,Adam Clayton on bass and guitar, and Larry Mullen Jr. on drums.

As far as I know, members are:

• Bono, Paul David Hewson
• The Edge, Dave Evans
• Adam Clayton
• Larry Mullen Jr

I recon it has to be changed. Is there a U2 freak out there who can do it right?

I reverted it. I couldn't find anything on Google that would say otherwise. Silly anon, leave the misinformation to the Ministry of Truth. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 16:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ignore google searches BTW. They are worse than crap too. Yup the lads as above. (Personal knowledge, not a google search) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 17:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)}

Sunday Bloody Sunday

the article states that, "the song had nothing to do with the Bloody Sunday incident of 1972." In the article for Bloody Sunday, the article states, "This incident has been commemorated in the popular protest song by U2, 'Sunday Bloody Sunday.'" Obviously, one of these articles must be in error. -K_R 23:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've corrected the reference here. The song is initially about Bloody Sunday but then becomes an astonishing collection of successively intense religious images finishing with the 'Sunday Bloody Sunday' words no longer referring to Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland but Jesus Christ's ressurrection on Easter Sunday. I first heard the song sung by U2 in Croke Park in the mid 1980s. I remember my fascination with the lyrics of SBS then, and having the experience of having its lyrics explained to me by someone close to the band some time later (things like what many people think is mothers, children actually being mother's children, ie, children of the mother, with the children being christians and the mother being Mary, the Mother of God.

I still remember the experience of hearing 50,000 people walking out of Croke Park chanting the chorus of Psalm 40. Incredible. The weird think is the impact Bono makes when you meet him. I've met quite a few prominent people over the years but there are only a handful who just have an incredible something that when they walk into a room, (and its not because of who they are, I know an ordinary teacher with the same thing) they just bring a 'presence' with them. Bono has it. Bill Clinton has it. (Hillary doesn't.) They just possess some sort of magic/karma/peace, call it what you like, that makes you feel intense emotions, a feeling of anticipation or something. And it isn't to do with what he is: most people in rock bands don't have it. And damn all politicians do either. It is a matter of who he is as a person. (Apparently it was eerie when Bono and Bob Geldof met Pope John Paul II a few years ago. All three have or had this strange intense personal impact on those around them. Someone in the room said it felt like the room was full of electricity when these three people were in the room together. One guy there when he left the room he was physically shaking. He didn't know why, just that there was an intensity between those three people in the room that he felt drained him emotionally.) Clinton and the pope both had it has young men - Bono had it as a teenager. It is eerie, intense and both calming and draining. It is so hard to describe it. But you see it in Bono on the stage or Bono chatting to people in the room. And that magic or whatever it is, is the key to turning U2 (as it did Sinatra, The Beatles, Ella Fitzgerald, and others) from just first class to being brilliant. FearÉIREANN 00:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Hands That Built America

"The Hands That Built America" was not released as a single. "Electrical Storm" was that compilation's analogue to "Sweetest Thing."

"Hands" was slated to be released as a single, but this never materialized. It was released as a promotional single, but that's it (and if you include every promo release on that list, it's going to get very, very long).

If someone can't prove it was released as a full-fledged single within a week, I'm going to remove it from the discography list.

--typhoon 09:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

non-NPOV on last 2 albums

Many people do not consider their last 2 albums to be among their greatest, certainly not considering ATYCLB as their "third masterpiece". Revolver 02:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The part about ATYCLB being their "third masterpiece" is attributed to Rolling Stone, so I think it's fair to include, even if I disagree with its sentiment, since it summarizes the critical consensus about the album (a worthwhile thing for an encyclopedia article to cover).

I couldn't find anything similar stated about HTDAAB, but maybe it was removed after you posted here. In fact, the closest other thing I could find was another Rolling Stone quote about Pop saying the band "defied the odds and made some of the greatest music of their lives." So I don't think the article is unfairly biased toward the later stuff, although, again, it might've been modified after your comment. --typhoon 06:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we know that whoever wrote this is some sort of illuminati with secret knowledge of the band. But I can't accept these radical readings of the songs as mainstream scholarship. For all the emphasis that SBS is ultimately and esoterically about Christ, Mother Mary, the Eucharist, evangelism, etc., thousands of U2 fans and the mainstream culture take this song as a a clear indication of a call to stop war in Ireland, and to express the struggle that all civilians face as they are caught in the middle of a war. The band has constantly reiterated this message in their concerts. Although I will give that your reading of Jesus's dying on a Sunday is factual and based on the lyrics, the other interpretations of the lyrics you cite are esoteric readings and designed to portray Bono's interests as far too evangelical. I think this is your own projection. [unsigned]

It is based on a booklet of their lyrics, with meanings and explanations attached, supplied by the band during a concert in the 1980s. It is also based on the comments of someone very close to the band, with whom I had a conversation on the meaning of the lyrics in 1991. Ultimately what so-called "mainstream culture" thinks the words mean is irrelevant. What matters is what the lads themselves say their words mean. They wouldn't be the first band to face misconceptions as to the meaning of their words. Any lyricist, writer, poet, academic etc faces the same problem where one is quite clear as to the meaning of the words one has written, only to find someone else tell one they mean something different. And even worse, tell the author that they are wrong and the person misunderstanding the words is correct. It is one of the most irritating things those of us who write for a living face. What the lads meant by those words is clear in their eyes. It is not simply saying 'stop the war in Ireland'; it is a treatise on the extent to which the wrong war is being fought, and how Christians should not be fighting themselves for unimportant temporal things, but should, fight and, as the lyrics state, "claim the victory Jesus won, on a Sunday Bloody Sunday". How exactly could that line in any way be interpreted as simply a comment on war in Ireland? FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 04:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Discography/Track Listing

May I just say that the way this Discograpy is arranged with the track list on this page (instead of having to click to the album's article) is awesome and extremely helpful. Please use it on other band pages! -CunningLinguist 06:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, we may want to consider splitting off the extended discography onto its own page (say, U2 discography, like The Rolling Stones discography) and only featuring the studio albums on the main page since it's getting a bit long. --typhoon 07:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I did just that. I left a list of albums on the main page, but I left out the cover thumbnails and track listings because that's a lot of information to maintain on two separate pages. It's all on the discography page, though. --typhoon 21:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Original Soundtracks No. 1

Should this album really be listed as an U2 album? I mean they released it under a different name (Passengers) for a reason. Furthermore Brian Eno, Pavarotti and Holi are listed as members of the Passengers. So I think this album is from another band which happen to include the members of U2. What do you think?

I think it should:

• It involves every member of the band (and Eno's practically the "fifth Beatle" anyway; Pavarotti and such are credited in the liner notes as "additional Passengers," for whatever it's worth).
• It was originally started as a U2 album. I get the feeling it was only released as "The Passengers" for commercial rather than artistic reasons (although this is debatable).
• "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" have both been re-released as U2 songs.
• It fills a nice gap in their discography. Even though it's often overlooked, I feel it represents an important stage in the band's musical exploration, sort of the summit of their atmospheric experimentation with Eno.
• It keeps us from having to give the Passengers their own page ("The Passengers" redirects to the "U2 (band)" page).
• There's some precedent for this sort of discographical simplification (like lumping Freak Out! under Frank Zappa instead of The Mothers of Invention or Are You Experienced under Jimi Hendrix instead of the Jimi Hendrix Experience).
• The Original Soundtracks No. 1 page clarifies the whole mess anyway.

I'd be interested to hear more opinions, though.

--typhoon 07:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Thought of another thing: it's the only "side project" to be included in The Complete U2. --typhoon 22:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC))

(Passenger tracks have also been released under the name U2.)

Have U2 disowned October?

When I was looking on Google a few days ago for articles about artists disowning their own recordings (I could not find one single article dealing specifically with various cases of this) I saw someone suggesting that U2 had disowned October. The writed suggesting this (his name is cited that fact that the only track from that album included on their 2000 best-of 1980-1990 was a hidden track (actually the title track).

Whilst that is evidence of the band disowning October, I haven't seen a reference anywhere on Google after a recent search. As to why U2 might disown October, being a voracious reader on music (being very familiar with many people who hate U2 in the process), I certainly could suggest some possible reasons, especially the fact that the themes of the songs are different from those on such albums as Zooropa.

Can anybody confirm rumours U2 have disowned October to be false or not. [The theory actually comes from a writer called Jeffrey Blehar at amazon.com].

• I don't think U2 has "disowned" October, and it's still listed on their website. However, it may be their only album from which they don't regularly play a song at their recent concerts (which is unusual because the album is very highly regarded among many of U2's hard core and orginal followers.)

• Gloria has been played several times on the Vertigo tour. The only album they have not played a song from is Pop. Some people consider October to be a weaker album, but U2 have certainly not disowned it.

Too POV

Does anyone else have a problem with this line about Sunday Bloody Sunday? "Though not regarded musically as one of the best U2 songs (they had yet to hit the musical heights that became their trademark later), it is generally regarded as one of the most fascinating examples of their linguistic abilities."

I have to ask, regarded by whom? And 'they had yet to hit the musical heights'. What exactly are musical heights and who decides when a band reaches them?

I agree. There needs to be a qualifier on that statement or it should be removed. As most of the hardcore fans believe as such, somebody should just state that. --jonasaurus 08:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal of * from F*ck

I went ahead and changed the * in F*ck to a u. We're all enlightened individuals here, and understand that such language is not harmful. Especially when in the particularly cogent context of denouncing violence. Also, I don't believe that euphemistic phrasing has any place in wikipedia. --jonasaurus 08:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's uncensored on the Rattle and Hum page too. I agree that it looks pretty silly starred out in an encyclopedia. --typhoon 22:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Fansite churn

There seem to be a number of anons adding, demoting, and replacing links to various u2 fansites pretty much constantly. This is fairly pointless and unnecessary. Any ideas what to do about it? I'd hate to have to get the article protected. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

ugh it's on all band articles, it's really annoying

I took the liberty to clean up a little of them Kristbg 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, they still keep coming. I'd like to suggest this short, but relevant, list of links:

• Official Site
• @U2 (Fansite)
• Interference (Fansite)
• U2 Wanderer (Discography Fansite)
• U2log (Fansite)

All of the fansites are in English and updated often. I don't think any more would be necessary. --Kristbg 01:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone added a lot of links now. Should we keep sites like "U2 Spain", "U2 France" and "U2 Star"? They're pretty good, but I think @U2 and Interference would do the trick. --Kristbg 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Page name

Isn't it kind of silly that U2 redirects here? Either this page should be at U2 or the U2 (disambiguation) page should be moved there. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think when there's one overwhelming use of a term, the article should be there. I would support a move. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. U2 itself should be either a disambiguation page (like it was before...) or it should contain the article most people are looking for (methinks, the band). It should not be a redirect. Acegikmo1 17:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just to clarify, someone moved U2 to U2 (disambiguation) in mid-August. The move really should have been discussed due to the potential complications, and at that time this issue should have been raised. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

G'day guys, I have just moved the page to U2 as the band is by far the most common usage. We now need to correct all the links from U2 (band) to U2. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would've put the disambig at U2. And that's what my discussion on U2 (yesterday) said. Which has been nuked out/probably not merged.

And if U2 does become the page for the band, I'd just make U2 (band) into a redirect.

I really think that the band ought to be [[{name of band} (band)]], I was actually looking for the spyplane. Nobody will care about the band in 100 years, but the Gary Powers cold-war thing, and aviation history (most difficult plane to fly) will be...

~ender 2005-12-13 10:57:MST

It's a generational and cultural thing. There are many, many people for whom the spyplane is the U2 they expect. There are many, many people for whom it's the band. That's now; I wouldn't speculate about 100 years from now. Wasted Time R 17:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Formation date?

At the Milwaukee concert on September 25th, the band mentioned it was "29 years to the day" of the band's formation in Larry Mullen's kitchen. Should the phrase "The band was formed in Dublin in October 1976" be changed to "The band was formed in Dublin on September 25, 1976"? --144.62.206.39 18:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On their October 6, 2005 appearance on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Bono said 29 years this week, which would put the formation date as October 1976. Hawaiian717 11:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, so there's obviously a discrepancy. Having been at that concert in Milwaukee, I'd be more inclined to go with the September version—a date also supported by Neil McCormick's book Killing Bono[1]. --Mcmillin24 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Next Album Recordings (2006 - 2007)

Someone deleted the Next Album Recordings section. I think this section is valid, despite being speculative, because its written in an encyclopedeic (sp?) fashion. I brought it back for now... lets see what happens. I'm sure theres a speculation taglin that can be inserted, but I can't find it, so if anyone knows what it is, could you please add it? What do people think? --Nathan 20:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The list of songs in this section is taken nearly word-for-word from my web site, @U2 (www.atu2.com/newalbum). Credit as the source of the list would be appreciated, if not a link in the EXTERNAL LINKS section. I dare say, with great humility, that @U2 is an authoritative U2 site, having been referred to as the "best" or "number one" U2 fan site by the likes of NME and Rolling Stone, respectively. ..... Pleeker 21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the person who added it didn't mean to not give due credit to @U2 for the information. I added a reference now, that should be OK. (By the way, congrats on the website!) --Kristbg 19:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Kristbg. Thanks for the footnote. I recognize your name from ... where? Pleeker 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On another note, this line here: "...the Edge has admitted that he writes new songs after every show." I find that very hard to believe. What's the source on that? The band's routine on the last two tours was to leave most shows immediately after the last song, hop in a vehicle, and head to their hotel or to the airport to fly back to whatever city was being used as headquarters. At times, various writers and reporters would be allowed to go along on these post-show rides, and I don't recall any of these articles (in Rolling Stone or Blender or MOJO or places like that) talking about Edge writing new material every night. It's just too hard to believe. Pleeker 22:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mercy

I think the part about the song "Mercy" should be taken out. Although this song has become a fan favorite since it surfaced on the internet, it's not more relevant than other songs like "Be There", a demo from 1983. Kristbg 16:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 15:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Done. If anyone has any problems with that, you can copy and paste the text from the version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U2_%28band%29&oldid=29572594 --Nathan 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced the text as I feel it is far more relevant than a demo like 'Be There'. Whereas 'Be There' is simply an old, throwaway demo, 'Mercy' is a complete track that was left off the 'How to...' record at the last minute and split the U2 fan community in two. At one point a number of fans when as far as attempting to get the track played on commercial radio as they felt, rather foolishly without thinking of the legal consequences, that everyone should hear it! It has sparked debate and excitement last seen in 1990 when the 'Achtung Baby' demos were leaked from Hansa Ton studios and has, arguably, gained more 'infamy' and is still discussed throughout fan forums on a frequent basis. For this reason I believe it is right to leave the text in and bring the track to the attention of anyone who may read it so they have some idea on what's being talked about when suddenly someone mentions the track! -Gareth Brown 16:02, 5th February 2006

Well, I still think it's not relevant enough, but let's leave it there. My opinion is that there's too much hype over it right now, and that "Mercy" will be as important as "Be There" or any of the Salomé demos as time passes. --Kristbg 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Mercy" still seems to have no place in the article, so I moved the info to How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb. Again, feel free to move it back, but it seems to fit much better there. --Kristbg 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone put the 'Mercy' thing back. At least edited so it "Fits". Just go to forum.interference.com and then see how much of a debate the track causes... - Jonathan Jones 18th March 2006

Taking out the Montreal bit

Good call, whoever took the second half of the paragraph off the introduction. I almost did it myself. It sounds like something someone who was at the Montreal gig did, just because they wanted to spread their happy news. --Nathan 19:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Vertigo Tour article

Does an article exist about the Vertigo tour in a similar way to the Zoo TV Tour article? I can't seen to find one under Vertigo Tour or Vertigo tour, or find one linked from this article at all - surely there has to be one though! -- Chuq 04:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a short, bad, unwikified, poorly named, and orphaned one at Vertigo '05 Tour. You could move it to Vertigo Tour and expand it and change the U2 article to link to it. Note that Popmart Tour has an article in addition to Zoo TV Tour, but Elevation Tour does not as far as I can tell, nor any of the ones pre-Zoo. In my view most rock concert tours do not need or deserve their own article, although Zoo TV is clearly the exceptional case. Wasted Time R 04:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now done the rename and expand for Vertigo Tour. As for merit, each of Britney Spears' tours has an article, so the bar is set low :-) Wasted Time R 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Elevation Tour now also exists as well. Wasted Time R 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As does Lovetown Tour. Wasted Time R 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC) And Joshua Tree Tour. Wasted Time R 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC) And Unforgettable Fire Tour. Wasted Time R 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC) And War Tour. But that is probably it for me; I have no knowledge of or feel for the earlier tours, nor any confidence they are worthy of an article. Wasted Time R 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Shouldn't the fact that they're now in it be mentioned in the article? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 08:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, mid-way through the 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and "Vertigo" (2004 – )' section. Wasted Time R 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Where's Batman Forever single?

Great article but fail for not quote the Batman Forever 1995 single. [2] --Rick Browser 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's actually there, on the "Achtung Baby, Zoo TV and Zooropa (1991 – 1994)" section. Its name it not, though (Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me) --Kristbg 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've noticed a small 'edit war' developing on this page - Seems people like to take a dig! Excuse me as I'm fairly new, but what's the criteria to get a page listed on the 'Vandalism Threats' page? It does seem to be fairly under control, but it does seem to be getting rather tedious! What with these 'Mariah Carey' comments and general snide remarks towards the band! Just a thought anyhow. : )--Cavs 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV to a fault

Why does this article give something like six theories each on how Bono, The Edge and the band itself got their names? Presumably one is right and the rest aren't; report the correct one as fact and ditch the rest. (Meanwhile the rest gushes like a magazine article; but then, I understand that's pretty typical of music articles on Wikipedia). PurplePlatypus 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the theories on Bono's and the Edge's names belong on their own pages. However, I see no real problem with the stuff about where "U2" came from, especially given the quote from Bono regarding the common myth about it. WesleyDodds 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The stuff about Bono and Edge should be on their own articles. --Kristbg 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved Wikipedia brown 08:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Universal Music

Should "Universal Music Ireland" be listed as a label. I'm not entirely sure of their connection, but they DO have some. I know on a lot of (all?) their videos on Yahoo! Music (I think all in IE/UK, and most of them in US one, not sure though) list © Universal Music Ireland. Does anyone know exactly what the connection is? - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

U2 & Hip Hop?!

"After touring with hip-hop star Kanye West, Bono personally stated that the band will "experiment" with newly inspired ideas from hip-hop music"! Can somebody tell me what the hell is going on? I'm a "monster" fan of U2, I know everything about them, but I never thought that U2 is going to mix their music with hip hop! Is this true? Aeternus 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Bono actually said something like that in a interview, but then again, Bono says all kinds of things. --Kristbg 16:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny fact!

Does somebody know that, when U2 was formed, Adam Clayton didn't knew to play the bass guitar! --Aeternus 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• he could speak english well though.

American Perspective

Second paragraph might make sense to American readers but it's an odd little paragraph otherwise. The Joshua Tree a breakthrough album? Maybe in the States. 50 million in the US and 150 million in the rest... surely the second reference goes first?

The U.S. numbers are more authoritative, since they come from RIAA while the worldwide numbers are uncertfied,hhh thus often the U.S> numbers go into 1st. Wasted Time R 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Clichés

While the article overall is good, as so often happens with music articles it uses a tone, style and language that is based on rock music journalism, rather than encyclopaedia standard. It needs to tone down the music press feel of the language (which is all too often full of hyperbole, hype and sweeping statements) to be accessible to a wider readership on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read "Bono on Bono" (Interview book with Michka Assayas)? --Aeternus 16:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to remove some of the more "extreme" cliches per your criticism. I left a few in there though, for better or for worse. I also removed a few of the occurrences of the word "experimental" which was in the Unforgettable Fire section like 3 times. I'll look over the article in the next few days and try to add sources as well as maybe even toning it down further.

Wikipedia brown 08:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a hell of a lot better. Well done. It is all too easy for writers to slip into jargon associated with their pet interests (music people write article like something from a music magazine, sports people write sports articles in sports jargon, political people write articles full of political jargon. As an encyclopaedia we have however to write all articles in similar encyclopaedic language rather than in specialist language. (Music industry jargon also has a habit of using overblown hyperbole — how such-and-such an album was seen by critics and fans, as if it was the world's most overblown event. I've just come across a motorbike article off Wikipedia which claimed how the design of a type of saddle was the most important event in the 20th century. I guess the writer never heard of two world wars, atomic bombs, the holocaust, etc!!!) Overhyped jargon-filled language was undermining an otherwise impressive article here. Its culling had brought the article far closer to feature article status. Well done. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW a snippet of trivia I know through contacts with someone in the band: U2 are the first band ever to have the recording of an album interrupted by a phone call from a pope. During the recording of the current album, the recording had to be stopped when Bono's mobile phone rang. It was Pope John Paul II wanting to talk to Bono about third world issues!!! Too bad there isn't an independent, non-personal source to use to put this in (though I think a BBC programme on the band may have mentioned it also.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

u2.com hacking??

http://www.zone-h.org/defacements/mirror/id=3766382/ ???--Dgbgg 08:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

General info on U2

If somebody finds a fact that the "U2" article shouln't be a featured article, write it.--Aeternus 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I would love to see this as a featured article, I don't think it meets the necessary requirements. However, it could be part of a collaboration to elevate it to featured status... any suggestions? --Kristbg 16:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I think that project is inactive. I guess this one is the correct one. --Kristbg 16:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to add a section of U2's characteristics that sets them apart from most bands. For example, I hear that they have always owned 100% of the rights to all of their music (instead of the record companies). Also, they rarely ever allow sampling of their songs and they are very careful with allowing their songs to be used in advertisements. If I have time I might see if I can find more concrete information, and I'll include it in the article. Wikipedia brown 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's a bit tricky. From what I remember, they got the rights to their songs through a deal in the mid 90's where they acquired part of Island Records as part of their new contract. I could be wrong, though (I have a book at home with more info on this, I'll take a look)... About sampling, I don't think so.... maybe they're careful about voice samples, but there a lot of ocurrences of sampled guitars and bass lines ("New Year's Dub" and "Take Me To The Clouds Above" are the more famous examples), and even the crowd noise from Rattle and Hum. About advertisements, that was true until the release of How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, when they filmed the infamous iPod commercial. More recently, four songs ("I Will Follow", "Where The Streets Have No Name", "Beautiful Day" and "City of Blinding Lights") are being used in World Cup spots by ESPN. --Kristbg 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good points you bring up. It would be nice to see some info on the new contract bit that you spoke of somewhere in the article, if you are so inclined to write about it and find the reference. As far as sampling, I recall hearing a story that Puff Daddy (P Diddy?) wanted to do a track with the With or Without You baseline (similar to Clouds Above but in a more disgusting P Diddy sampling Every Breath You Take sort of way), which U2 refused even though it would have netted them all kinds of money. You're right about the commercials, but it seems to me (maybe because I'm a huge U2 fan) that they only do commercials that they feel strongly about or have some creative control over like the iPod stuff (which was not a one-off you pay us, we give you our music but instead was definitely more synergistic), the World Cup (with Bono's voiceover and inspiring words), and the only other time I heard a U2 song was for a riveting PBS commercial with Streets Have No Name and the tagline "Be more" (of course there was also the NFL season where they played ATYCLB material like it was about to be locked up in a vault). Not sure if any of this can be captured in a concise well-referenced section of this article, but it never hurts to consider. I think adding what's notable and unique about the subject matter greatly enhances the relevance and readability of wikipedia articles. Wikipedia brown 02:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

U2 were not paid for the use of "Vertigo" in the iPod commercial, as Bruce Springsteen noted in his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction speech for them. However, I'm not certain if they were paid for the ESPN ads—although I'd guess not. --Mcmillin24 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

About U2's ownership of part of Island Records: this is part of an interview with Marc Marot (director of Island until 2000), where he mentions that U2 was granted part of the label as payment for their royalties:

"Last question on this whole period: Was there any point, then, at which it could be said that U2 was helping keep Island afloat? Or is that overstating it?

No, it's not overstating it, because -- they weren't putting money into it, but what they were doing is not taking money out of it. So, basically, what Paul McGuinness did, and did extremely well, was that he converted the cash Island owed on The Joshua Tree into a percentage, an equity in the label, so that U2 owned a piece of Island Records, owned a piece of Island Music, and owned a piece of Blue Mountain Music. And when the company got sold in 1990, the value of that piece was way in excess of the value of the royalties that they waged on The Joshua Tree. Which meant that they were able to make a significant return on the money that they gambled on the Joshua Tree royalties."

About U2 not being paid for the TV ads, I think what you said is correct. In the specific case of ESPN, I think the deal was to give some exposure to the ONE campaign in return (but I don't have any sources on that). --Kristbg 12:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a mention of the U2/ESPN non-monetary arrangement on a U2 blog: http://www.atu2.com/news/tdih/search.src?Key=espn

Thanks for the replies guys, I think all of this info would be a nice addition to this article, although it will take a good amount of work. By the way, not to be too scatterbrained here, but another portion that needs to be added is C3 in the featured music project criteria list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_Music_Project (style, influences, and legacy) as well as more pictures of course.

Wikipedia brown 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Featured Music Project article, and this is what I think we should add to the article in order to improve it to featurd status:

• S1: contains information on sales (if sales are largely or entirely irrelevant, make it clear why) - We need sources on album sales!
• P1: The article should have several freely usable images, all of which must be clearly tagged with appropriate documentation on each info page - We only have images for the Elevation and Vertigo Tours. We should add something from the Joshua Tree and ZOO TV eras, at least, and a picture of the early days would also be nice.
• P2: The article should have few or no fair-use images, which, if used, must include rationales on their info pages for the specific use on the article in question. - Any important pictures that would fit this criteria? Maybe something from the UABRS video?
• A1: Sound samples should be in .ogg format - The Pride snippet is okay, but the Bob Marley cover has to go. I would add snippets of "With Or Without You", "One" and "Vertigo".
• R1: an article cites its sources in a section entitled "References", which is consistently and attractively formatted according to one of the standard systems - WE NEED SOURCES!!! There's a lot of info that can easily be referenced on news sites, especially the stuff from 1995~onwards.
• F1: The article should be concise and precise, and should explain everything necessary to understand the concepts presented. The article should not contain any violations of the neutral point of view policy, and should not use weasel words; opinions should be specifically cited to those who hold them - as said before, we need to work on that.
• F2: The article should contain an "External links" section and may include a "See also:", if appropriate. External links should include the performer(s) homepage, if such exists, and should not generally include fansites; however official or otherwise extremely and unusually important fanclubs and similar sites may be appropriate. External links to sites that do not contain useful information beyond that covered by the article should not be included. "See also" sections should not exist, or should be very small. No links that are (or could be placed) elsewhere in the article body should be included in the "See also" section - I'll take a look at that. There should be no problem in doing this.

I'll try to clean the cliché stuff up as well as I can in the following days. Also, does anyone know how do we include this article on the Featured Music Project? --Kristbg 20:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be good kristbg - maybe you could try and "encyclopediafy" the clich-ridden Zoo TV Tour article too - it's a shocker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_TV_Tour

Well, a lot of work has been done. Still, there's a lot of useless information and weasel words that need to go. --Kristbg 02:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article looks better (new pictures add a lot!), but it is still missing references and its really long. First question: can we use references to U2 fan websites (for example atu2.com) for the info? I'm trying not to, but it's difficult to find specific information from general news organizations. Also, I noticed that the Joshua Tree, despite being their most popular album, does not have any information about themes, style, etc that the earlier albums do. This makes me questions whether the other sections should have specific information on each album or whether it should be relegated to the album's article (for example see The Joshua Tree). Where do we draw the line as to how much information to include in this article versus the album's article? Finally, can you point out some of the remaining weasel words? I would like to discuss how to rid the article of the remaining ones in an open, constructive fashion. Let's take this all the way to FA status! Wikipedia brown 19:07, 18 June 2006 (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.