Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

U2

2007-11-30T02:41:19Z

Forthewin827: Added Much Needed Detail to Article; Corrected Mistakes in Religious Facts

''This article is about the Irish rock band; for the reconnaissance aircraft see [[U-2]].''

'''U2''' is a rock band from [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]], comprised of four members:

*Bono (real name: Paul Hewson) - Lead Vocals, Rhythm Guitar
*The Edge (real name: David Evans) - Guitar, Keyboards, Backing Vocals
*Adam Clayton - Bass Guitar
*Larry Mullen, Jr. - Drums and Percussion

The band was formed in September 1976 by the four, who were still schoolboys. Since the release of their debut album "Boy" in 1980, the band has gone on to become one of the most successful and popular bands in the world. They have also been considered by many critics to be one of the most innovative live bands in music, specifically with revolutionary tours such as the 1992-1993 Zoo TV Tour. The band was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2005, its first year of eligibility.

Three members of the band (Bono, The Edge, Mullen) are [[Christianity|Christians]]. Early in the band's career, the there worshipped regularly, though it is not known if the band has maintained such levels. Specifically, the band's "October" album has many references to God. Adam Clayton, who is an athiest, stated that during the recording of "October" he felt a bit isolated from the group, but has not since.

Beginning in the late 1990s, Bono began campaigning for social justice for the impoverished, specifically focusing on the continent of Africa. In 2006 he co-founded the (RED) product line with The Gap, Motorola, Apple and other retailers, donating a portion of the proceeds to [[The Global Fund]] which helps women and children affected by [[HIV]]/[[AIDS]] in [[Africa]]. Bono has also appeared in front of the [[United Nations]] numerous times, and has met with many world leaders, including U.S. presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He has received numerous awards and honors for his work, including the Liberty Medal, nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, and being named one of Time Magazine's Persons of the Year for 2005.

In 2006 there was criticism of U2 for moving some of their publishing company from Ireland to the Netherlands to avoid newly created high taxes for music groups in the country.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/08/nbono08.xml</ref>

They have released the following albums:

* Boy (1980)
* October (1981)
* War (1983)
* Under a Blood Red Sky (1983) [Live recordings from the band's tour in support of the "War" album]
* The Unforgettable Fire (1984)
* The Joshua Tree (1987)
* Rattle and Hum (1988) [Partially consisting of new tracks, partially of live recordings from the Joshua Tree Tour]
* Achtung Baby (1991)
* Zooropa (1993)
* Pop (1997)
* All That You Can't Leave Behind (2000)
* How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (2004)

==Hit U.S. Singles==

* I Will Follow (81)
* New Year's Day (53)
* Pride (In the Name of Love) (33)
* With or Without You (1)
* I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (1)
* Where the Streets Have No Name (13)
* Desire (3)
* Angel of Harlem (14)
* The Fly (61)
* Mysterious Ways (9)
* One (10)
* Discotheque (10)
* Staring at the Sun (26)
* Beautiful Day (21)
* Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out of (52)
* Vertigo (31)
* Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own (97)

(#) denotes highest position on Billboard Hot 100.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Rock bands]]
[[Category:bands]]

Talk:U2

2007-11-30T02:17:52Z

Forthewin827: Bono's Activism/Band Religion

The religious and Iraq angles are interesting but should not be the primary focus of an article about U2, it turns the article into a polemic! Someone, not me, should put some time into this article.

:Bono is praised for his activism more than his music. I wonder if his activism is really doing the Lord's work, in roughly the same way as I question Jimmy Carter's "work" on [[human rights]] and [[democracy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just as I don't judge Bush's religious motives I also don't question Bono's or Carter's as I feel neither of us is qualified to do so. Regardless this article is about U2 not Bono and U2's primary activity is music not politics. --[[User:TimB|TimB]] 17:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What early songs supported the IRA? The band in general and Bono in particular is very anti-IRA. One early song was Mothers of the Disappeared (from Joshua Tree?), which is critical of the IRA. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:23, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

The claim "In the 1980's Adam Clayton dated the late supermodel Anna Nicole Smith" troubles me. The primary reasons I doubt it to be true are:
# Anna Nicole Smith was married to her first husband in 1985 at the age of 17 and divorced in 1993.
# She began her relationship with billionaire J Howard Marshall in 1991
# She didn't gain notoriety until she appeared in Playboy magazine and ads for Guess in 1992/1993.

In searching online, I find no other reference to them being together.

It's much easier to prove something is true than that something is false. What's the procedure for deleting a dubious entry? Is there a set period of time for soliciting citation prior to deletion?

its not true, he's never dated Anna Nicole Smith. if you want, i could fix this page up, im a big U2 fan. {{unsigned|Headsup}}

To Ed Poor: Uh, no. He's much more known for his music than his activism. He uses his fame to spread the word of his activism.
Also, they're not all Christians and do not all practice regularly. I believe three are Christians, and only Bono practices regularly. I can cite U2 by U2 if necessary. I know for sure that Adam Clayton is athiest. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 21:17, 29 November 2007 (EST)

User:Forthewin827

2007-10-21T19:23:03Z

Forthewin827: Started page

Forthewin827 is a registered independent from the Philadelphia area.

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2007-10-21T19:22:26Z

Forthewin827: /* Bias */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)