Talk:Zoo TV Tour

MacPhisto, et.al.

what other artists have created alter egos for the stage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.111 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I Am… Tour, Best of Both Worlds Tour, The Fame Ball Tour, The Nightwatchman Tour (got deleted), maybe even Satanic Mick in The Rolling Stones American Tour 1969, probably some others I'm not thinking of. Whether Bono influenced any of these ones that came after, I don't know. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Inside Broadcast"?

Was the first leg of the tour really called "The Inside Broadcast", as has been recently added to the article? I think this is a little-used retronym applied after the fact. Can you find any sources from that time that called it that? By comparison, "The Outside Broadcast" was printed on ticket stubs (including one that I have) and used in promotional material, as were of course "Zooropa" and "Zoomerang" even more prominently. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard it called the "inside broadcast". --Merbabu (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More info?

I dunno if much of this has been included in the article or not, but if the latter it could potentially be squeezed under Reception. I've added tidbits from this PDF article to "Discotheque" and "Miss Sarajevo", and it has some info on Zoo TV near the end. It's basically a commentary and analysis of how Irish music changed during the 1990s, and there's some suggestion that the Zoo TV Tour and U2's influence in Irish music may have played a part of it. Might be interesting if it can be worked in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whither the MacPhisto quote

Y2K has yanked the long MacPhisto quote:

"Look what you've done to me..... you've made me very famous, and I thank you. I know you like your pop stars to be exciting, so I bought these (gestures to his shoes). Now, my time among you is almost at an end; the glory of Zoo TV must ascend and take its place with all the other satellites. Don't fear, for I will be watching you. I leave behind video cameras for each of you. So many listening tonight, I have a list... People of America, I gave you Bill Clinton—I put him on CNN, NBC, C-SPAN. Too tall to be a despot, but watch him closely. People of Asia, your time is coming—without your tiny transistors, none of this [gestures to Zoo TV stage set] would be possible. People of Europe—when I came among you, you were squabbling like children. Now you're all hooked up to one cable, as close together as stations on a dial. People of the former Soviet Union—I gave you capitalism, so now you can all dream of being as wealthy and glamorous as me. People of Sarajevo, count your blessings... There are people all over the world who have food, heat and security, but they're not on TV like you are. Frank Sinatra, I give you the MTV demographic; Salman Rushdie, I give you decibels. Goodbye "Squidgy," I hope they give you Wales; goodbye Michael ... Goodbye all you neo-nazis, I hope they give you Auschwitz."

It's been in the article for a long time and I don't agree with Y2K's assertion that no one would read it through. To me, it really gets across the MacPhisto persona and a lot of what Zoo TV was about in terms of tone and subject matter. (Although it certainly helps to have known what his voice sounded like while saying it.) I think there should be a consensus before it's removed, not just a unilateral action. So what do others think? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I put it into the quote box about a week ago. The case for that change is clear - it's way too long a quotation to be placed as part of the prose. As for "unilateral removal", I share Y2K's sentiment that it is way too long. ON the other hand, Wasted Time is also right - it does look into MacPhisto's character in depth. However, we could say that about any quotation about any topic - the trick for an encyclopedia is to be concise. As I said in my edit summary about a week ago, perhaps this quote can be linked to WIkiquote - but I'm not so familiar with that. We need to find a middle ground. Alternatively, a more appropriate quotation (not necessarily from MacPhisto) could be sourced.

As a bit of trivia on the quotation, I was at this concert, and there was a a lot of cheering and laughter during the speech - but an overwhelming boo and a tut-tutting "ohhhhh" which is not evident in the video version. But almost immediately, Bono was forgiven as the crowd cheered again for Salman Rushdie and the Auschwitz line. --Merbabu (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"the trick for an encyclopedia is to be concise" – you must be working on a different project than I am ;-) WP gave up 'concise' a long time ago, and that's okay with me. I'd rather a goal of this becoming the definitive online account of the greatest concert tour ever. But to capture the essence of the tour without breaking the alphabet soup of WP:* rules is very difficult, and I think long quotes like this help us do it. (With respect to your aside about being there, the reaction it got does illustrate the high-wire act that Bono and the group were taking on, as the article mentions.) Moving it to Wikiquote is tantamount to deleting it, since I don't think Wikiquote has much of a readership. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Granted, "concise" is the wrong word - how about an "efficient use of words". (much like Edge and his guitar!?!?) I just think the quote rambles on without really making it self-evident what it's inclusion is trying to say. there are much better descriptions available and the article already does OK describing him. Summarise or paraphrase is the key - or just improve from other sources - the quotes great for fans, but it's not the be all and end all of MacPhisto. --Merbabu (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, in terms of length, I'm not sure this article needs any expansion on MacPhisto (quality of info we can continue work on though), rather, perhaps there might even be a future justification for a whole article on MacPhisto? Perhaps then that quote could be included??? --Merbabu (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I think the value of the quote is as much in illuminating the whole tour's ethos as it is to describing MacPhisto, and is thus an aid in showing not telling. A separate article on MacPhisto? Seems like a stretch even to me ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just not effective. Sure it's a great further insight to those (like us presumably) who are familiar with the character, but for the first time reader, it's not that illuminating without context, etc. Indeed, a MacPhisto article would certainly be way down on my priority list - my point being, the Macphisto section's length, if not it's quality, is already about enough, or long enough already. --Merbabu (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the attachment to this quote is - unwieldly length aside (not to mention undue weight), I think the casual reader would actually be confused by simply reading the quote. A lot of it references items that are out of context and it's hard to ascertain what Macphisto's point is. I think a casual reader would get much more out of understanding Macphisto by actually watching video of the speech - hearing the accent, seeing Bono's antics, putting the different aspects of this character together. Otherwise, it just seems like a bit of a rant that won't be understood very well. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give up on this one, unless someone else shows to weigh in. The quote was added by an IP four years ago, so I guess he/she isn't around to defend it. I like the "The MacPhisto speech is a masterpiece of bitter irony ..." line from that edit too, but of course that was purged a long time ago because Thou Shalt Never Render An Assessment Here. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I just don't agree with you on this one. (ie, inclusion of the whole quote). In summary, I believe there are more effective ways to get the point/s. I hope there are no hard feelings. --Merbabu (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings; this got a good airing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gross, ranking and profit

As a break from all the content disputes, it would great if someone could find a definite answer to:

1. What was the worldwide gross of the tour? I could only get the North American gross. I saw $155 million once for the worldwide, but it was uncited and quite possibly wrong.
2. How did the worldwide figure compared with other tours up to then? Again, I only got North American ranking.
3. Did the tour earn a profit, lose, or more or less break even?

These are key points that articles on tours like this always cover. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I know all that. But, the band always harp on about them breaking even on T-shirt sales. Whether that's accurate or just myth/Bonolese who knows??? --Merbabu (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm making my way through "U2 at the End of the World". When I get to the end, I'll add whatever concluding information about the tour that is available. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a characterization of the profit margin for individual shows, but still nothing on the whole tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now added Merbabu's T-shirt sales, as earthily stated by McGuinness, which put the tour slightly in the black overall. Still don't have a total gross amount, though, which is what tours are most commonly ranked by. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One wonders though how much credence we put on these comments. U2 are a private corporation and don't have to disclose much - and, who's to say the snippets they do toss out can be taken that seriously? --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. But the characterisations about high expenses, low profit margin on sold-out shows, and the tour overall making a small profit, are made by various writers, including Flanagan. Presumably those writers have been convinced they are correct. And they seem reasonable; the tour certainly was expensive to put on. That T-shirt sales made the difference and that the group was close to bankruptcy are quotes from McGuinness and Bono; the reader can decide if there's hyperbole in them or not. The first really isn't surprising (lots of promoters make their money off parking and concessions, this is sort of the equivalent for the artist) and the latter, assuming true, shows that the group was living on the edge financially as well as artistically. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Background section

I find it a bit amusing that a number of pieces of descriptive material and quotes about the tour have been removed on grounds that the article is too long or needs tightening up, yet a Background section has appeared which tells yet again the 'U2 became too pretentious and had to reinvent themselves' story, which is already well trod over in the U2 article and the Achtung Baby article and is already alluded to in the Rattle and Hum article and the Lovetown Tour article. No, I'm not arguing to elimination of the Background section. I'm arguing that this article should be comprehensive; there's probably more to write about the Zoo TV Tour than any other concert tour in history, so let's do that without self-imposed boundaries on size. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - i was kind of agreeing with you until you got to the last part of your last sentence. We need some limit. --Merbabu (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we shouldn't go over the 60 kB / 10,000 words readable prose size guideline of WP:SIZE. It's currently at 45 kB / 7655 words, or about 3/4 full. How about that? Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. But on a section-by-section basis, some parts are/were just too long. --Merbabu (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on what criteria, other than just you don't like it? This isn't like the U2 summary main article, where everything has to be ruthlessly edited down to its core. An article like this has room to breathe. (Although if you want to lop off the entire tour dates section, which is a directory listing that will be hard to cite well enough to achieve GA or FA status, I'm cool with that, although it should be discussed in advance first.) Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a side-note, but in the "City of Blinding Lights" FAC I was told that primary sources are okay for things like tracklistings and concerts. If a cite needs to be found for the tour dates, U2.com's ZooTV page should be fine to use (or alternatively, Pimm Jal de la Parra's U2 Live: A Concert Documentary; Crazyjoker and I used it for the Sarajevo concert article after I found it on Google Books, and it seems to be pretty damn comprehensive (comes with dates, setlists, and even the venues). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten that the de la Parra book includes the supporting acts for each show, which is what I was worried about (U2.com's listing omits them). So I was wrong, this section can be cited without problems. In many tour articles for other artists, citing this section is a problem though, especially if grosses from each night are included as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

While I didn't construct the table, I did do a fair bit of filling out the support acts, and putting in corrections - based on Parra's 1994 edition. I should cite it in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria? That would depend on the section at hand. If you're talking about your these two edits, it's no good leaving the connections you've drawn in edit summary. It needs to be explicit in the text - most readers won't get a connection between the DHOH and ZooTV. --Merbabu (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You lost me here. Rather than just say Reed appeared with U2 and performed "SoL" (your terse version), I'm saying that he dueted with Bono (not necessarily true, could have had the whole vocal) and that their vocal styles were completely different. That describes musically what happened, instead of just being a directory listing of guest appearances, which isn't especially interesting. It also illustrates how artists are often influenced by those unlike themselves, and feeds into the next sentence. You're probably happy with the preceding paragraph's sentence, "Other guest performers on the tour included Axl Rose, Jo Shankar and Daniel Lanois." as nice and tight. But that leaves me cold – what on earth did Axl Rose and U2 do together, and why? Now there's actually a description of it in the Flanagan book, but why should I add it knowing you're just going to throw it out? [18:32, February 28, 2010 Wasted Time R]

Indeed, you completely missed my intended points. So, looking again at the specific two edits at hand, but individually:

• This is just a bit of trivia as it stands. The edit summary tries to explain the intent, but one should write for readers' benefit, not editors'. Then there's also the problem of the DHOP and Zoo TV connection being original research.
• and, in this one if you feel that Lou Reed singing a duet on Zoo TV in the Giants Stadium is so pivotal, profound and of such gravitas, then it really needs to be spelt out. It's not something that *I* need to have explained in the edit summary, rather, it's for the *readers* benefit. Then it needs to be established whether it's something of trivial value, or something of great import to the subject matter.

Please try and address these, otherwise, without significance appropriately asserted in the text, I don't believe the info merits inclusion. --Merbabu (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you guys are getting lost among some petty details. The fact, Wasted, is that while this article offers some room to grow on Zoo TV era happenings for the band, it can't just be allowed to carelessly grow. The Background section was added to offer context to the band's situation - if the tour was a big reinvention for them, what were they like before? That's an important question to answer for the reader. When you are having a disagreement about what to add and what to exclude, think about if adding it will really help the reader's understanding about the band and the tour, or if there is a more concise way to get the same point across (or if the point is even necessary). Such is the approach I take when looking for details that may be unnecessary and may just be what I call "puffery" (e.g. the point about Bono and Lou Reed's vocal stylings). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Wasted points being restored and I didn't remove his restoration - I just want the point to actually be stated. Ie, if indeed, the DHOH are thematically linked to Zoo TV (Wasted's justification for mentioning them in the prose) then this point needs to be made. --Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked the DHOH text, both for accuracy (de la Parra says "Television" didn't get added on until partway through the Euro indoor leg, and "the tour DJ" is Fallon) and to indicate the importance of it (Flanagan calls it "the perfect Zoo anthem"). And it's clearly significant that U2 liked the song so much they invited DHOH on as a supporting act. I'm not saying DHOH was the supporting act most integrated into the show, but they certainly were more than most (the Pixies and Primus had zilch to do with it, for example ... Public Enemy had some involvement, but more as rabblerousers that Bono liked than any real connection to Zoo themes). By the fact that the article doesn't mention any of the other supporting acts, the reader can get a sense of DHOH's signficance without us plunging into the OR that you're worried about. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the larger question of what's "trivia" or "puffery" versus what's "something of great import to the subject matter" and "will really help the reader's understanding of the tour", in reality the recent addition that's done the most to increase the article's length is the Conception section, which goes on at great length about the ideas that went into the show, the ideas that didn't go into the show, the seven stages of Trabants appearing, billboards, inflatable dolls, etc etc. It's the longest section in the article now, and none of it was added by me. The things added by me have been things that actually appeared in the show, not all the things that didn't appear in the show. So it seems that the metric for "trivia" and "puffery" is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, not anything really objective or consistent. Now, don't get me wrong; I like the Conception section, it's interesting and illuminating, even if not of great import. But so are the pieces I've added. There's room for both. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard not to be sensitive about one's edits. And speaking generally, of course, the edits of some editors show they are indeed more insistent about their edits than others - often to the determinant of the motivation of others (some call it ownership fatigue - but one would be a WP:DICK to bring that up...). At the end of the day, people are not going to agree with all of our edits. As for your edits, I personally think some are outstanding particularly with the excellent research and source finding you sometimes use (see RTSS for which i gave you a barnstar if you remember), and other ideas such as the long (and initially in-prose!) MacPhisto quote I don't quite agree with - but I got your intent and suggested other approaches be sought. Your edits and drive are an overwhelming benefit to the U2 articles and you should continue. Speaking of which, where is your implementation of your inspired suggested addition on the influence of Edge's break up on Achtung Baby. I know at least one of us wants to copy edit it....  :-P --Merbabu (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said there, I'm not. And your latest "copyedits" show part of the reason why; in three places you lost important and well-sourced meaning just in the guise of saving a few words. I have to battle over and over and over to keep anything in the article, why would I want to do this elsewhere? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Conception section? You can't just talk about the tour without giving a frame of reference. If the tour was such a departure for the band, what were they changing from, and what gave them the ideas and inspirations to make these changes? I find the answers to these questions to be more illuminating than various trivia that is sprinkled in (e.g. fan philosophically challenging Bono?). You also exaggerate the amount of rejected ideas that are discussed - exactly half a paragraph out of 6 is dedicated to rejected ideas. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Woo hoo! I found it finally many years after my VHS copy faded away. ZooTV 92 Christmas Special. Just insert the numbers up to 13. Great for background. --Merbabu (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, but I can guarantee that if the remaster does come out this year that video will almost certainly be on of the bonus features. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This was filmed at Yankee Stadium! Oh man, this will be a fun watch! Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zoo TV Tour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   “techo-future”, shouldn’t this be “techno-future”?  Done

   Why is Paul Gascoigne’s nickname, “Gazza”, used to refer to him? Is there are a reason for this?  Done

   This was done because all the references given actually refer to him as Gazza, and to be honest, I'm taking a leap of faith that this controversial footballer is who they were referring to. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

   It'd definately be him they're referring to (I'm a Newcastle United F.C. fan). Nearly everyone refers to him as "Gazza". His name in this article should be changed to Paul Gascoigne, because this is more encyclopedic.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

   “U2 had won many over fans.” --> “U2 had won over many fans.”  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   “Paul Oakenfold, who became one of the world's most prominent club DJs by the decade's end, replaced him on the 1993 legs” needs a source.  Done

   The guest performers “Jo Shankar, and Daniel Lanois” need a source. Also remove the comma before the “and”  Done

   “As the character, Bono spoke with an exaggerated Southern American accent. Mirror Ball Man appeared during the show's encore and made nightly prank calls, often to the White House. Bono portrayed this alter-ego on the first three legs of the tour, but replaced him with MacPhisto for the 1993 legs” needs a source.  Done

   “with "Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car" and "Lemon" worked into the encore during Zoomerang, and "Dirty Day" in the main set during the same” needs a source.  Done

   “and the two later married in 2002” needs a source.  Done

   The “Tour dates table” needs sources.  Done

• Just some of the support acts now need sources.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I really enjoyed reading the article. The prose is of a high standard. On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

   Right, everything's been fixed and the article now meets the criteria. If you decide to take it to FA I can stick a review in there - It's definately capable of passing with a bit more improvement. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 09:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review! I appreciate your help. I will likely request a peer review before nominating it for Featured Article, just to make sure that any significant issues are taken care of before FAC. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Dome vs. The Omni

I have no idea what I am doing here procedure wise on wikipedia, and I could be factually mistaken, but I think the 5 March 1992 Atlanta concert date was at the newly opened Georgia Dome and NOT the Omni, as stated in the chart. I was there and unless old age is kicking in, the show was at The Dome. Please notice that U2 did play a few years earlier at the Omni...but my memory combined with the fact that the GA Dome had just opened, leads me to believe the chart is wrong. This link suggests I am right: http://www.levyrestaurants.com/Levy/DiningExperiences/SportsAndEntertainment/Georgia+Dome.htm

Terry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.32.69 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, please do not place new discussions/topics inside old discussion sections. I think you are mistaken: U2.com, u2gigs.com, u2station.com, and the book U2 Live all say the concert on March 5 was at The Omni - which makes sense, since that leg of the tour was devoted to American arenas. U2 returned to Georgia later that year for the outdoor leg, which saw them playing stadiums. September 25 was when they played the Georgia Dome. I would not trust one piece of information on that website you listed. They called the tour the "Pop Tour". The tours from 1992-1993 were called "Zoo TV" and the 1997 tour wasn't called the "Pop Tour" either - it was the "Popmart Tour". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Encore set list change Desire and Ultraviolet to Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car and Lemon

I changed this article a few days ago to include Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car and Lemon to be mentioned in the encores part of the show outline. After the Zooropa leg and the band moved on to the Australian (Zoomerang) leg Desire and Ultraviolet were not included in the set list. Desire wasn't played until the Popmart Tour and Ultraviolet wasn't played until the 360 Tour. These songs were replaced by Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car and Lemon. This is shown on the Live in Sydney dvd. If you check the set lists from this part of the tour this continued until the end of the tour. With Or Without You and Love Is Blindness were still played afterwards. I am going to change it back. Whoever changed it after I corrected it last time don't do it again check your facts! If you don't like the way I wrote it you rewrite it in your words.

Source:

http://www.u2setlists.com/zooropa.shtml - at the bottom of the page it notes that Desire is not played again until 1997 and Ultraviolet until 2009.

http://www.u2setlists.com/zoomerang-newzooland.shtml - this is the final leg and the encore is always the same: Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car, Lemon, With Or Without You, Love Is Blindness, Can't Help Falling In Love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.16.216 (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As per Y2kcrazyjoker4's edit summaries and mine, it's better to cover Zoomerang set list changes in the "Recording and release of Zooropa" section, which the article already does. The point of the show description sections is to capture what most of the shows looked like, not cover every exception along the way. After all, Zoomerang was only 10 shows out of the tour's 157. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time R, the concert setlist more or less stayed intact as it was throughout the duration of the tour, albeit with a few minor changes (dropping some of the latter Achtung Baby tracks). The Zoomerang/New Zooland leg was the last ten shows. Even though the Zooropa album had been released in early July of 1993, U2 did not include its songs all at once in the live set. As previously mentioned in the article, Zooropa and Babyface were dropped after a handful of performances. Squaredroot (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mirror ball Trabant

From the page: "A seventh Trabant by the B-stage doubled as a DJ booth and a mirror ball." I take it this Trabant was also suspended from the stage, except gently revolving ala a mirror ball, but was this also the case when being used as a DJ booth? When was it used in the U2 sets (i.e. was it used during any performances specifically)? Is this also the mirror ball referred to in the PopMart Tour page? --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zoo TV Tour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091113234604/http://www.bpfallon.com:80/audio.html to http://www.bpfallon.com/audio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of box office figures and doubts about accuracy

I'm not sure how useful the recent addition of box office figures (attendance and revenue) is to the "Tour dates" section, given that the data is missing for over half of the dates. And at some point all this information gets into WP:NOTADIR territory.

Furthermore, all the U.S. figures are sourced to the "Boxscore" feature in Billboard, whose figures were not always accurate. In particular, page 17 of this issue lists the 2–3 September 1992 shows at Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia as combined attendance "88,684 sellout". The second of these shows was one of the shows I saw on the tour and it was most definitely not a sellout. I had bought the ticket a week or two before the show, as they were readily available. I took detailed notes at the show and they say "Lots of empty seats – almost all but lower part of upper deck empty." And 44,000 is too low for the concert capacity of Veterans Stadium, which was huge (this news piece puts concert capacity at 55,000–60,000, where the low end would apply here given the Zoo TV stage was larger than average for outdoor acts). I suspect the combined attendance figure itself may be right but it was 54,000 first show and 34,000 second show, something like that.

I know, I know, WP is about verifiability and not truth. But just had to say this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Opening Act at Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, October 18, 1992

So Public Enemy did not open for U2 at this show. Trust me, I would have remembered that! Not sure if the rest of the block in the chart is correct or not, but the openers were the Sugarcubes and The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy. See: http://tours.atu2.com/concert/arrowhead-stadium-oct-18-1992 Sorry I'm too lazy to actually edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.108.134 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zoo TV Tour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090415160844/http://www.stufish.com:80/u2/zoo-tv/reality.html to http://www.stufish.com/u2/zoo-tv/reality.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

anti-fascist themes of zooropa and the zootv tour

hi,

it seems the main contributor to this page does not like that i have explicitly stated the anti-fascist themes of the zoo tv tour, and presumably the zooropa album.

they claim that the source i used references the opening act (macnas) only, and not the ideas.

however, one website that discussed parts of the show mentions:

The tour that developed from this was an audio-visual extravaganza to say the least. Giant video screens surrounded the stage and beamed out ZooTV images and messages in a sensory overload of information. Phrases such as "Everything you know is wrong", "Watch more TV" and "Freedom is slavery" flashed hypnotically from the stage in between Bono actually watching local TV using a remote control to flick restlessly between channels. Some observers suggested that there were more sinister hidden messages hidden among these images (in particular, it was pointed out that the sentence "Bomb Japan now" could be spotted if you looked carefully). This was widely dismissed as mere paranoia. However, there was some controversy in Germany due to the decision to use footage from Nazi propaganda films ('Olympia and 'Triumph Of The Will' by Leni Riefenstahl) during the intro to the show. Similarly, during the live performance of 'Bullet The Blue Sky', the burning crosses referred to in the song appeared on the video screens before metamorphosing into burning swastikas. The fact that the display of Nazi symbols is illegal in Germany made this a potentially dangerous move, but the audiences took it in the spirit in which it was intended, ie anti-fascist.

further, what is being said by macnas really does fit the theme of zoo tv and zooropa in general. the cover of zooropa is an alien with the stars of europe around it, and there are many messages that confirm or support the macnas artist's claim of being anti-fascist.

indeed, the rolling stone in 1993 (when it was good) also seems to support this:

For the band, however — and in particular the Edge, whose increased musical and conceptual input earned him a co-production credit on the new Zooropa album (he also sang lead on the first single, “Numb”) — the pangs of European politics have been anything but remote. In retooling the Zoo TV stadium extravaganza that blitzed the United States in the summer of ’92 for European audiences, U2 charged straight into the belly of the beast. The show’s opening visual assault on gigantic vidiwalls and banks of televisions now included dramatic footage from Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda film from the 1930s. Huge flaming swastikas and burning crosses appeared on the vidiwalls during “Bullet the Blue Sky.” Meanwhile, Zooropa, the Achtung Baby follow-up the group released in July, chillingly evoked the exhilaration and fear of Europe in the throes of the new world disorder. During the Zooropa ’93 tour, U2’s frequent live-satellite transmissions from Sarajevo — in which residents of the besieged city spoke uncensored to stunned stadium crowds — triggered a heated media debate abroad about the ethics of mixing up rock & roll special effects with heart-ravaging disasters.

the question i have for other fans: is it wrong to explicitly state that zooropa and the zoo tv tour were a provocative way of addressing the manifestations of fascism? to me it seems obvious, but the main contributor of this page seems to oppose that. 50.99.255.205 (talk)

What I am objecting to is the way you are adding the info and the lack of reliable sources you are using. The Macnas article does not mention U2's inspirations or ideas behind the tour, just the members of the Macnas troupe using their pre-show performance to mock fascism. You are trying to connect dots without a reference explicitly stating what you have written. Also, you added info to the Conception section as the first sentence claiming that anti-fascism was the inspiration for the tour... which it most certainly was not. Disparate TV programming, morning zoo radio, bootlegs of U2's concerts - these were the ideas behind the tour. Anti-fascism was a theme that was largely incorporated for the 1993 shows. Furthermore, the Three Chords and the Truth website is not a reliable source, so whatever you are trying to source from there cannot be used without identifying another, more reliable source. Lastly, the article already touches on the topic of anti-fascism - the info on the 1993 introductory video in the Show Overview section discusses U2's growing concern with radical nationalism. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

don't you think it's fair to change "radical nationalism" to "fascism"? it seems kind of obtuse to avoid a more apt term. i didn't find the word and this was a large reason for my hunt. lastly, i find this zoo world order article to be handy. if you're going to be so touchy about your page, incorporate it somewhere because it was hard to find and it's a quality support for the anti fascist theme. i didn't know it came on in 1993, but i won't argue with that. boy you must be older than bono.nevermind, i see it has been sourced. you're very touchy over U2 articles, by the way @Y2KCrazyjoker4:. you undid my solid rewording of the zooropa (song) lede without basis. saying it wasn't an improvement. the english was terrible and you simply reverted and reworked it to your liking. you cannot be so controlling over U2 articles on this website. 50.99.255.205 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

October 2021: -> Pixies section

The U2 fan who looks like a wp:single-purpose account needs to behave themselves. These facts are sourced [1]. Woovee (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

All your edits are not well written and do not match the Featured Article quality of the rest of the article. Furthermore, all of these claims in the article are just that - claims. There's also no context given in your edits for why any of these occurrences are worth mentioning: are they uncommon in the music industry? Are they actually poor treatment of a support act? For all those reasons, I see no reason not to revert. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a case of SPA. I won't argue with a profile like yours.

For the record, U2 were vocal about the Pixies in many interviews. There is a gap between their pretending liking for the band and the attitude they had during the tour. Spin explains this. Pixies already had a high profile back in 1992, the fact that their name was not mentioned on their dressing room, hurt them : the journalist also found it inappropriate and mentioned it. Why are these claims more worthwhile to be mentioned than saying a trivial thing such as this journalist was Kim Deal's boyfriend to discredit his work?

You are doing positive bias with this article as you are a fan and people like you are a plague on wikipedia. These claims will have to be mentioned in the article one ay wor another. Woovee (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe these claims would be worth mentioning if they could be corroborated or if the article prose could be written more eloquently. But as it stands, it's poorly written and not contextualized at all, and you've shown no interest in trying to copyedit it to make it encyclopedic. Also, calling me a single purpose account user is laughable. Apparently, you've not bothered to look at my previous contributions whatsoever. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, these claims were disputed by none other than the Pixies' Black Francis. From Bill Flanagan's book U2 at the End of the World: "After some saber-rattling U2 decided to let the Pixies finish the tour, but Pixies leader Charles Thompson was furious with Deal about the whole thing. He said that U2 had treated the Pixies great and he couldn't imagine what Deal thought she had to complain about." Basically, it would be WP:UNDUE to repeat these specific claims, which amount to tabloid fodder. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It is ironic that you take for granted all the claims from a U2 biography that looks like a hagiography. Had you mentioned a quote of Black Francis saying U2 were great with them, it would have been fine. Instead, you pick up a sentence from a U2 hagiography "He said that U2 had treated the Pixies great and he couldn't imagine what Deal thought she had to complain about". this is peanuts. Putting on a pedestal a hagiography about your favourite band while putting down the article of an established music magazine such as Spin is wrong. And keep it quiet, with undue, your way of doing things is undue. I will include all the quotes from the Spin article, criticizing U2 because an encyclopedia is neutral. I don't need to build a consensus, the onus is on you. I have a reliable source and you piss on it. Woovee (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Who are you to judge a book you've never even read? It's clear from all your recent edit warring and topics about you on administrator noticeboards that you do need to build consensus. One article published in Spin and subsequently disputed by a fellow member of the Pixies does not make it gospel. I also find your inclusion of a sentence that U2 never met the Pixies completely laughable - as if not meeting an opening act is somehow mistreatment (if it was even true). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting from a quote of Black Francis saying that "U2 had treated the Pixies great and he couldn't imagine what Deal thought she had to complain about" ? Do you have such quote of Pixies' singer in store, and if so from which interview ? Still waiting an answer from your part explaining why you included a gossip saying that this journalist was Kim Deal's boyfriend. Who are you to flood wiki with articles to the glory of U2, are you paid by their record company ? You also didn't even mention that the band hired an extra musician on that tour for sequencers and keyboards parts, whereas it is mentioned in Spin. "I also find your inclusion of a sentence that U2 never met the Pixies completely laughable", you keep on discrediting the work of Spin magazine because they deigned to criticize a little bit your idols. Woovee (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's clear you haven't read the entirety of the Zoo TV Tour article because I in fact do mention someone handled sequencers and keyboards: "Des Broadberry managed the keyboards, sequencers, samples, and MIDI equipment." How this is at all relevant to what we've been discussing, I have no earthly idea. Why do I need a direct quote from Black Francis about the Spin article? Bill Flanagan is a credible music journalist and reported Francis's response himself. Also, are you serious that you don't know why it is significant to mention that Jim Greer's girlfriend was the Pixies bassist Kim Deal? BECAUSE IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Reporting on a rock tour while traveling with your girlfriend, but failing to disclose that girlfriend is a member of one of the tour's opening acts is one of the most blatant examples of conflict of interest I've ever heard of and severely eats into the credibility of Greer's claims. Of course his article is going to be written with a bias towards his girlfriend/the Pixies. That fact that you can't understand why this fact is relevant tells me everything about why you are not qualified enough to weigh in on this topic without bias. The fact is, I am mentioning both Greer's article and the response to it, so I want to present multiple sides of the story (albeit, without undue weight). In contrast, all you want to do is mention Greer's claims, which further reinforces you are the one who is biased. Finally, your unfounded, bad-faith claims that I can't include a sentence remotely critical of U2 is farcical. Go see here, or here. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No such thing as a "Drunk driving accident"

@User:AidenTEM Sir, "drunk driving accident" is itself "load language". It is not even remotely impartial. It is the direct opposite. I removed the impartial, loaded language and replaced it with a neutral term. You restored the bias. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a matter of semantics. Accident doesn't point the finger at anyone. Sure, that may change in court later, but Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We do not need to use any loaded or biased language, and changing the word from 'accident' to 'crash', especially across multiple articles, comes off as changing the language to an assumption of guilt, especially when paired with your edit summary of 'drunk driving is no accident' in response to my revert. AidenTEM (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to apologize for my report, this was completely the wrong scenario for that measure and I accept my failure to fully read the documentation before doing so - I have removed the report and apologize again. AidenTEM (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:AidenTEM I appreciate your apology. I will pause my edits on this matter until further agreement can be come to. I disagree that the matter is merely semantic. The main article is "Traffic collision", and you can see in the first section there's a paragraph discussing the problems with referring to all collisions/crashes/incidents as "accidents". The POV issue here (it was my intent to remove a POV, rather than insert one) is that calling every collision or incident an "accident" does in fact take the stance that the driver wasn't at fault, it points the finger away. And why should the finger be pointed...to or away? I don't see how terms like incident, crash, or collision are assigning guilt. Would you prefer to use collision over crash? That's fine with me. In the specific case of drunk driving, a crime, it seemed especially obvious to me that those are the results of choices made. A person doesn't accidentally drink to the point of drunkenness and then accidentally get behind the wheel of a car. Thanks again. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)