Talk:One (U2 song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

U2 (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U2, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.U2Wikipedia:WikiProject U2Template:WikiProject U2U2 articles

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Song that saved U2"?

Widely considered by fans and the band? That's a huge call, and one that I think is very dubious. Who said they were in need of saving anyway (they had just had two hit singles). Any reference?

I agree. the 'dodgy' era so to speak came with low sales from zooropa and pop AFTER achtung. it cannot be argued they were going downhill until achtung came along though. their last 2 albums had been the joshua tree and rattle and hum, far from failures. citation needed or this should be deleted.

Hi, I know what you are saying but I think you are misreading the sentence - Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum are great albums (although rattle and hum was as well reveived as theyd hoped). The reason why the song One saved U2 wasnt because it restored their reputation or achieved great sales. It was because the band was about to split up due to musical differences. But they all loved One so much that they worked through it and found a common purpose.Breed3011 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I take your point. It needs clarifying. There was friction in the band and doubts over whether there was any future for them (recording sessions weren't going well), then they wrote this and got things working again creatively Macphisto12 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge

The two songs shouldn't be merged. It's not so much to do with the differences between the actual style of the songs, more about the fact that the Mary J. version is actually a separate single. This separate CD release is enough to warrant a separate page, rather than combining this with the original U2-only release.

I agree - for the most part becuase the Mary J version is very dissappointing and will be lost to history very shortly (no one will play or remember it). Let the single page stand alone until it is irrelevant and taken down.

Automatic Baby

There should be some mention of that one-off performance of the song with Michael Stipe/Mike Mills of REM and Adam Clayton/Larry Mullen of U2 in '93. I dont understand why this link says it was written by others http://www.metrolyrics.com/one-lyrics-johnny-cash.html [1]

Merge

I don't agree, these are obviously two separate songs. Same beat, different tone of voice, singing style, melody, rhythm and so on. Merging shouldn't be expanded on remakes or remixes like this one. From that point of view MJB Da MVP (from the same album) is the same song as Hate It Or Love It. Lajbi 13:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree with merging the song too. It deserves a page on its own simply because Mary dominates the song and it appears on her album. Its different to the original version the song is now associated with Mary rather than u2... Rimmers 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same song, just not the same record. Wikipedia's song notability guidelines suggest that separate recordings of the same composition should not be given separate articles unless the main article becomes very large. With pages like Respect (song), I'll Be There and I Will Always Love You, information on two or more notable versions of a song is included within one article. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to this song. Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. we could always put the two singleboxes in the article, if that is the problem. --Kristbg 17:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song notability guidelines is not Wiki policy though. The song is shaping up to be a big hit single (as illustrated its charted at #19 on the UK singles chart one week before it was released!) - and therefore the association of the song will be linked with Mary J Blige. I disagree with merging the articles at this stage. I think it makes more sense to wait and see how big the song becomes - because it is shaping up to be Mary's biggest ever single in Europe at the moment (topping the European airplay and download charts for example). Also, merging the articles will ruin the U2's article in my opinion; the page is well written and is a great article as it stands. Rimmers 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still think the articles should be merged, I wouldn't mind waiting a bit to see if the MJB article gets big enough to stand on its own. Now, about the song being more associated with MJB than U2... VERY doubtful. --Kristbg 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imo its not doubtful lol; the song is set to become Mary J's biggest hit in Europe, so the song will obviously become closely associated with her...Rimmers 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's that prediction working out for ya, sport? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.228.6.74 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged

MJB originally performed this song ('One') as a tribute to Bono at his Music Cares Dinner honoring him as the Person of the Year

the song shouldn't be merged with bono's. basically it's two different singles and very different feels. mary's is soulful and pleading. a very classic singing style in the R&B mode of the early 70's and late 60's before disco.

Merge tag removed

Consensus shows that the articles should not be merged. I have removed the tags. SilkTork 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, should we write an article for the Johnny Cash cover as well? -MrFizyx 02:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the second mention of Johnny Cash's version because it doesn't actually say anything about it or add to the previous mention.

Bank of America

I think the Bank of America section should be kept. Somebody removed it saying "irrelevant, non notable", which I don't think is the case. It's an internet phenomenon and the cease and desist letter and possible lawsuit by the music company against the bank was reported in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. To me, that seems notable. --AW 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed again by User:Merbabu, who said "remove - it's irrelevant. it does not add to our understanding of the song at all. It's inclusion is simply stupidity. Please write about something worthwhile. Encyclopedia, not pop mag trivia section" All of which I disagree with. It's not irrelevant, it triggered a cease and desist letter and was in the NY Times and elsewhere. It was a internet phenomenon. Merbabu might think it's dumb, but it happened and it got news. I don't see how you can just call something stupid. --AW 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the song One. It is about some guy's prank or spoof or whatever. Ask yourself, is that actually providing readers with anything about the song One? It's like those idiotic pop culture sections in Fauna articles they explain that Orang utans appeared in some video game. This is a serious encyclopedia. So what if something makes the news. Dozens of things make the news every night. This is not a news service, rather an encyclopedia whose content is meant to stand the test of time. Not some dumping ground for trivial pieces of information. Remember, news coverage or "it's interesting" do not make notable. Wikipedia is not about stuffing every little bit of trivia into an article, it should be about quality, not quantity. Merbabu 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel like it's notable, it's a spoof that triggered a cease and desist letter. Spoofs are mentioned all the time in articles here, and the controversy was subject to articles in the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. Wikipedia:Notability says

“

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.

”

--AW 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AW, I will agree with you that this is a notable incident. I believe the Bank of America incident is definitely notable about the song and is very interesting information that I didnt know before. I dont see any reason why anyone would suggest removal of this information. For a song, I mean, this is as notable as it gets. I have put the information back in. Merbabu, you will have to provide a strong rational as to why this incident is not notable. --Matt57 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mp3 Blog?

"A chopped and screwed version has also been created for the mp3 blog Screw Rock 'n' Roll."

Is that significant enough to enter? Did the creator of the blog put it on? I mean, putting it under the "popularity" label seems a bit of a misnomer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.97.174 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Religious side...

It should be expounded on that the song has religious implications, the lines "love is a temple, love the higher law" is an obvious reference to St. Paul's biblical reference in I Corinthians 10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash

It should be at least mentioned that Johnny Cash covered the song. It's a great version, but nevermind that. Just mention it, to give JC equal time with MJB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.246.207.202 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill Lane image

I added Image:Windmill Lane 1994.jpg with the caption "Windmill Lane in Dublin in September 1994: A fan has written out in blue on the sidewalk on the near left the entire lyric to "One". The Windmill Lane Studios are beyond that on the left." and the edit summary "add image illustrating intensity of fan reaction to "One"".

Y2kcrazyjoker4 removed it with the edit summary "it'd be a nice image if it weren't in the shadows and you could actually tell that there is something written on the sidewalk..."

Yes, I wish I had the chance to take more angles of this, but I was on frame 24 of a 24-exposure roll of Kodachrome 64 on the morning of the day I was returning from a business trip to Dublin. So I took one shot to try to get the whole scene in. Yes, the lyrics are in shadow, but it is not true that you cannot tell there is something written. Enlarge the image (which you almost always have to do with WP thumbnails anyway) and look at the sidewalk on the near left. You can clearly see a lot of writing in blue, and you can clearly read two of the last lines of it: BUT WE'RE NOT THE SAME / WE GET TO CARRY ...

And the image is clearly relevant to the "Reception" section it's in, as a tangible testament to how fans have responded to "One" – in addition to voting it best song or best lyric ever in some polls, it was also carefully written out in its entirety on the street. This is what WP images are for, to reinforce and amplify and illustrate what the text is saying. I see no reason for the removal of the image, and I've restored it. Others can voice their views. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joker on this, its near impossible to see the lyrics. Maybe try cropping it? Either way, how many other songs have had lyrics written on the street somewhere. Deserted Cities (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll often see a line or two of a song written out somewhere. But I've never seen a full song written out like this, not any other U2 song at Windmill Lane, not any Beatles song at Abbey Road, not any Springsteen song in Asbury Park. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this version? I tried cropping it and brightening it a bit (hope you don't mind, Wasted Time R). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but you lose the fact that it's on Windmill Lane, which is half the point. How about you crop out the whole right half of the picture, and crop out the sky at the top, but keep the studio buildings, and also do the lightening. (I'd do this myself except my photo editing software's installation has gone haywire in the last couple of days.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I've cropped it okay but it's difficult to get the colouring right so you can see the lyrics. This may sound strange, but will it okay in black and white? I've made it so that the chalk really stands out against the soundwalk. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coloring was right on the previous one you did. Does that same adjustment on the different crop wash out the buildings? If it washes out the sky, no big deal. As for black and white, it's hard to know without seeing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, trouble is that I can't remember qute how I did the last one (it's essentially my first time messing around with this thing). I'll try to get it so that it emulates the last one. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no rush, and thanks very much for your efforts on this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? Recropped and as close to the first crop version as I could get lighting-wise. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear the contrast has been jacked up, but it's certainly okay with me if it satisfies the objections of others. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contrast will need to be bumped for the image to be useful - otherwise, you kinda just have to assume the text is there and then look closely at the larger version. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good, we're all agreed this is the image to use and it's in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

music videos

I am confused. The music video that describes the Anton Corbjin version doesn't correlate with the 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftjEcrrf7r0 video on their official youtube account]. It fits the description of the version directed by Phil Joanou. One_(U2_song)#Music_videos. So which is it?

It's mislabeled. The restaurant one was directed by Joanou, the buffalo version by Pellington, and the original by Corbijn. See here: https://www.discogs.com/U2-U218-Videos/release/836460 Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral of Samuel Paty

Should a few lines about the usage of "One" in the funeral of Samuel Paty be included? Seems like it was very significant in France. PatConolly (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]