Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

œuvre?

I just want to say that the new opening paragraph is substantially worse than it was before. It assumes that one has a familiarity with all the other musicians mentioned, including someone as widely unknown as Stephen Foster. People may debate about the influence of one musician as opposed to another, but there is no way one could argue that Bob Dylan is not vastly more famous than all the other musicians mentioned. Therefore, the opening paragraph should not start off by comparing Dylan to them. Why mention other musicians at all?

Regarding the beginning paragraph where it says "his enduring contributions to the American œuvre are comparable to"... what does œuvre mean? I couldn't find the exact word on google and I didn't bother looking further because, in my opinion, an obscure word like this should not be used in the introductory paragraph of an English-language article. So unless someone offers a suitable alternative soon, I will re-word that sentence. Spookfish 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make the wording worse in order to avoid a very commonplace English word that has exactly the right sense:

The Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=oeuvre

Mirriam-Webster: http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=oeuvre

Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oeuvre

Or maybe buy a pocket dictionary at a used bookstore for a buck or two. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you are looking for a site with a lower reading level than the 8th-9th grade of Wikipedia proper, you might take a look at the Simple English Wikipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Oh, also Google shows approximately 37,000,000 hits on "oeuvre" (most just articles on whatever topic that use the word).

Still, all of those definitions say that "oeuvre" refers to the body of work of a single artist, not of an entire country. So that sentence doesn't really make sense. Thebogusman 05:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the word I referred to (spelled with the œ character) is not even the English version, and yet this is the English-version article for Bob Dylan. This is why I couldn't easily find an English definition. Secondly, of the first 5 pages (50+ sites) returned by Google for "oeuvre", only 2 seem to come from English sites. Bottom line, this a relatively obscure word in the common English lexicon and my original comment genuinely reflected that. Since the definition is appropriate though, I decided to leave it in but in its English version. Also, because it's reasonable to assume the average English-speaking viewer will not know its definition, I've linked the word to wiktionary. The irony about all this is that Bob Dylan's music was about giving the average man a voice, a voice he could relate to, and yet here you are being a snob about vocabulary. Spookfish 06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, I searched, and found that the word "oeuvre" is used in 490 articles on the English Wikipedia. Limiting the Google search to only English language pages does admittedly limit the hits to just 3,240,000. As to whether WP should use the dipthong in its orthography... I dunno, there might be style guide about it, but either way seems fine. I don't usually bother with characters that are hard to enter on my keyboard, but some users enter more diacritics than me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. "Stephen Foster" is an obscure name in popular music. </sarcasm>

Main Portrait

May I suggest that, considering Bob Dylan is still alive, we place an up to date photo of him as the main portrait. It seems silly not to have the picture as what he looks like now. Opinions? Levi_allemany 08:41 GMT 23 September 2005

I would say there is a lack of photos in general in this article. Akamad 14:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is that what most of us have in mind of the Dylan songs is connected to his earliest years. So when we think of Dylan, we mostly remember him looking like he does on the main page and sounding like the songs he published in the sixties. But this is not, of course, an argument against putting an up-to-date picture of him onto the main page. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

I think I'd want at least two photos of Dylan near the top. One when he was still in his 20s (like we have), and one when he was over 50. I don't think every change of clothing and hairstyle is necessary, even decade by decade, but "bookends" of his adult life (so far) would be useful. There is the 1997 concert photo a ways down, but if something that was more of a portrait, from the last decade, could be found it would be good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both ROHA and lulu. The current image should stay where it is, but another, more portrait-like photograph from more recent times (late 90's to current) should definately be included. I'm picture the love&theft cover in my mind, but it's probably got copyright issues. -SECProto 02:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You all agree and yet nobody's doing anything about the pictures.... I for one would be honored to add an up-to-date picture of Bob Dylan but I really, really can't find one :( --Manwe 10:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems in mass change

An anonymous editor, User:69.174.186.78 made a very large number of changes to the article at once. I think (but I'm not sure), this was an exact restoration of some pre-Monicasdude version. The anon's edit history is wholly on the Dylan article, and indicates unhappiness with Monicasdude.

However, regardless of the RfC process, the rollback misses many worthwhile additions that are more recent. Please make changes paragraph (or at most section) at a time, and note the general reasons for each change so editors can evaluate them.

Some problems in the mass change that are better in the current version (to my mind, and not necessarily complete):

• Loss of perfectly good image caption change
• Too much rambling material in the lead
• Minor Weatherman reference restored to lead rather than better, less prominent context
• Loss of improved section titles
• Throughout, much too much "purple prose" and subjective tone
• Introduction of previously corrected spelling fixes
• Restoration of unneeded Seeger apocryphon
• Reintroduction of wholly fictional "Friendship Years" stuff
• Loss of painfully ironed-out xtian-period language
• Subjective "doldrums" phrase
• Loss of recent note on Scorcese film
• Subjective "most famous songs" reintroduced
• Destruction of wikification of links
• False categories

There are some wordings that are better in the mass change... but let's find them individually, and insert them thoughtfully, and where relevant. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This is just the "Friendship Years" vandal at work, and his unhappiness with me is simply because I've repeatedly removed his vandalism, under this and other anon IDs. Monicasdude 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Instruments

Shouldn't the introduction to the article mention the instruments Dylan plays? A Dylan newbie would have to read through his bio sections before learning what instruments he plays. The fact that he plays the harmonica isn't mentioned until the "Recent live performances" section. Opinions? Akamad 07:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right Akamad, it is not even mentioned that he is a singer. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

I changed songwriter to singer-songwriter, and as of a couple of hours ago added the instruments. I guess I shall wait to see if there are any objections :-) Akamad 11:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The anti-lead again

This article attracts some weird editors. "He who says ROHA" is back again, and trying to kill the lead. It's just plain weird. S/he seems only to edit this page, and only for purposes of preventing more than one sentence summary from occuring before the TOC. I don't want to 3RR, can some other editors keep a watch on this as well. Thanks.

Btw. The article Wikipedia:Lead section is a good guide to an appropriate before-TOC lead. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"trying to kill the lead" -- And here you come back to what the point is: The point simply is that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters -- which in plain text means L u l u -- will never have the last word about this Wikipedia-Artikel about Bob Dylan. Why not so ? Well, because he is too old. What Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has in mind is something like this: I loved Bob Dylan from the beginning. I still love his music. Dylan is a very important musician and poet, I don't know why, but somehow he seems to be. Some call him a "whatever", and the others call him a "never-ever", so is he not by the terms of being a "whatever" and "never-ever" at the _same_ time a "whichywhachy-ever-ever" at the same time ? -- Yup, sit down and listen to an old Dylan song: (-- Did you expect me to chose one for your convinience ? -- Now, you and everybody has his and her own songs.) I can not be of any more help. (But not to forget: The "== The anti-lead again ==" simply means that not a single man can take over control of a Wikipedia-Article according to his own rules.) This is a simple and powerful truth. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

PS: As long as the Wikipedia rules have a meaning and are in force: Lulu has no right to even erase this . Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

So you're saying that you get to shrink the lead section because Lulu is too old? Gotcha. I am in favor of a real lead section too. As I asked you before, please read Wikipedia:Lead section. Rhobite 13:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"So you're saying that you get to shrink the lead section because Lulu is too old? Gotcha." -- Where did I say this ? I said that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters "will never have the last word about this Wikipedia-Artikel [read: Wikipedia article] about Bob Dylan." And I added "because he is too old". Which means: He will die earlier than most of the younger contributors to this Wikipedia article. And this means: Your control ends with your life. But maybe Lulu is so much younger now, than he was before... Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) PS: As to short introductions in Wikipedia articles: The shorter, the better. Details will (and should) always follow later in the later chapters.

It kinda makes me wonder how old "he who says ROHO" thinks I am :-). And I guess how old s/he is. It's actually not hard to figure out my age with a few mouse clicks, FWIW. In any case, I think I'll probably still be around for a few more years, and probably edit WP for some of that time. Still if "he who says ROHA" thinks "the shorter, the better", s/he should bring this idea over to the talk page of Wikipedia:Lead section. Until or unless that's changed, we'll follow WP style guidelines. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"It kinda makes me wonder how old "he who says ROHO" thinks I am :-)" -- Now, nobody ever addressed you with something like "ROHO". There does no contributor exist with that "ROHO". Did you mean "ROHA" ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

I've seen countless people address Lulu as Lula. what difference does it make? you still understand that it was adressed towards yourself. you should comment on the actual subject at hand. SECProto 02:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, "countless" may overstate it :-). But certainly more than one. And Lotus, LLE, LotLE, LotusEater, and whatnot. I know what they all mean. The pitfalls of a long username... My typo is kinda nice, actually, it's a good Spanish word. BTW. you are also naturally invited to the "old fogie wikipedians" club... we have a seriously lax age requirement. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wanna join the "old fogie wikipedians" club Rhobite? I think our age requirement is very flexible; but I'm getting forgetful about the details. :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it is weird. a quick summary helps to intrique readers more than "he wrote songs" in more elegant prose. -SECProto 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

To me it seems clear that until Wikipedia: Lead section and WP:Guide to writing better articles changes, the lead section should be longer than one sentence. Akamad 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of reversions

As expected, Mdude has waited for a tactical space of time and is now looking to resume the throne (see his unexplained reverts of today). All you good folks who weighed in during the RfC, now's the time... JDG 01:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Without explanation, you wiped out the work more than a dozen editors did on the intro section -- which I hadn't worked on -- in favor of an NPOV-violating version you wrote long ago and that other editors objected to. Your bad faith is evident. Monicasdude 01:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Moderate edits don't require pre-explanation, especially when they are restorations. Reverts do. Does my version violate NPOV or MPOV (Monicasdude Point Of View)? Obviously the latter. I did not write this intro version. It was built up over years with almost no input from me, by many more editors than those you refer to. It lasted right up until your ill-advised radical overhaul. I promised you that material would be coming back, and now it is. JDG 01:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, JDG, I agree with Mdude on this one. The old intro is full of NPoV violating text, and although it may flow slightly smoother off the tongue, I prefer the same one as Mdude. -SECProto 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you're perfectly free to feel that way, but I hope you're not also defending Mdude's habit of incessant reversions without explanation. Intoning the NNPOV mantra is not an explanation, from him or from you. I don't think this intro is NNPOV at all, so maybe you could demonstrate why? JDG 06:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not agree with monicas dude either - i dont agree with either of you. mdude reverts to his clinically sterile version, you revert to the version you agree with thats gotta be a year old and full of nnpov. as for n-npov:

"widely regarded as one of America's greatest" - by whom? "widely" and "one of" should be avoided in any NPoV article because they are weaselly kinds of words. I dont remember exactly where i read this, but it makes sense, and i agree with it.

"Dylan is credited with expanding the vocabulary of popular music" - again, by whom? i don't particularly think he did this all by himself, yet thats what this seems to imply. At least a little number relating to a footnote would be useful to show some proof.

There are others. As Lulu said, they are mostly in the third paragraph. The only problem i have with the first paragraph is the word "revered" - i too think that the comparisons to other musicians are good.

I would recommend we keep the old first paragraph that you agree with, and the second and third para's that mdude likes. thats my opinion. -SECProto 18:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Widely regarded by whom? By tens of millions of Americans alive at the time, including an obvious and easily documented majority of music critics... ""one of" should be avoided in any NPoV article because they are weaselly kinds of words." Huh? If "one of" and similar phrases were to be banned from "NPOV articles" there would be no way to indicate a condition between "all" and "none". Sorry, that's absurd. Are you denying there have been other great American songwriters? If you're not denying that, then Dylan must be one of them, no? Let's not get carried away with the anti-weasel sentiment. It's a good sentiment but, like most sentiments, becomes unworkable if applied absolutely... ""Dylan is credited with expanding the vocabulary of popular music" - again, by whom?"-- Again, by tens of millions of music fans and a steep majority of critics (SEC, in characterizing a majority public POV a Wikipedia editor is *not* giving his own POV-- this essential distinction needs to be learned by scores of editors around here, and not a few Admins). Do you really need documentation of this crediting? An essentially equivalent statement can be found in just about every published Dylan biography in book or article form. JDG 16:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If a statement represents consensus, there is no need for weasel words: hence simply "Dylan is one of the most influential..." (or whatever). If a statement does not represent consensus, a passive voice without attribution is just a way to sneak in POV within an ugly circumlocution: "Dylan is widely regarded as ..." (by whom?!). If some specific party regards Dylan as something, state who that is (and perhaps provide citation. If everyone thinks it, just state the fact so thought. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

While the "JDG intro" contains a few words that are too subjective in the second and third paragraphs, I definitely prefer the slightly longer first paragraph that contains comparisons with other particularly important musical figures. Simply indicating he is a songwriter doesn't give unfamiliar readers a a sense of his degree of influence (yeah, the full body of the article gets around to that, but the lead is meant to stand on its own as a "compact encyclopedia" entry):

Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman May 24, 1941) is widely regarded as one of America's greatest popular songwriters. Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Woody Guthrie, and Hank Williams are among the few songwriters similarly revered for their enduring contributions to the American oeuvre.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I think this should go to RFAr. ⟳ausa کui ^× 21:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm close to agreeing. I don't 100% like JDG's lead (parts are better, parts worse); but JDG should be granted WP:FAITH and his changes tweaked, not blind reverted as Monicasdude reflexively does. And putting in edit comments claiming everything JDG does is "vandalism" or "POV" is just insulting (and the exact same behavior that launched the RfC before). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that JDG's edits could also be considered blind reversion - was not the previous lead-in worked on over quite a period of time by a number of editors? and his revert to the previous lead-in eliminated all these edits. anyway, yeah, i like the version Lulu has instated. -SECProto 21:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, his ongoing bullying today puts it over the line for me. Who'll do the honors? JDG 16:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songwriter

Sometimes you will not find the name "Bob Dylan" among the hits when searching for the term "singer-songwriter". The reason may be that Dylan is not only a singer or a songwriter or a singer-songwriter or a whatever. Sometimes Bob Dylan is simply listed as a musician and a poet, what he simply is. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Fair use lyrics

There is some issue right now with the fair use of lyrics. I always figure it's better to discuss these issues rather than reverting. I myself am not familiar with fair use rules. I also wrote this on the WP:FU (he he, what an inconvenient acronym) talk page. Akamad 04:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Were you trying to make a statement of some sort here, Akamad? Or just directing our attention to that write-up? For instance, where do you come down on the fair-use dispute between Mdude and basically all other contributors to this article? JDG 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I was basically just directing everyone's attention to that write-up. And I started this discussion in the hope of getting people to discuss rather than just revert (this goes for all parties involved). As to where I stand on this dispute, like I said I'm not familiar with the fair use rules, and thus, don't know if the disputed edit is legit or not. Akamad 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

On that page, there is yet to be a single person who thinks it is not fair-use. SECProto 02:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I just had a look, it seems consensus is with it being fair use. Akamad 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I try not to touch the JDG/monicasdude dispute with a 10 foot pole.. but in this instance, the use of lyrics is unquestionably fair use. It is clearly OK to quote six lines of a historically significant Dylan song in an article about Dylan. The quote is a small portion of one song's lyrics. It's done for educational purposes and it does not threaten Dylan's album sales. Publishing a 30-60 second clip of a song in a larger work is generally accepted to fall within fair use. So quoting the lyrics from that clip counts as fair use too, doesn't it? There might be an editorial reason to keep the lyrics out of the article, but there isn't a copyright problem here. Rhobite 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How bout dis?

Hiya folks. How do you like the following sentence:

"Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan sold more than 58 million albums, wrote more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and set the standard for lyric writing."

JDG 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice to me. But the simple past tense is slightly wrong, since Dylan continues to write and perform songs (in fact, it almost suggests Dylan is dead and past tense). Better is e.g.:

"Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan has sold more than 58 million albums, written more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and has set the standard for lyric writing."

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Has he actually been hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation by someone? SECProto 01:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A search in Google will confirm that the comparison has been made many times. I like this new sentence and prefer it to previous versions which were a little too sterile IMHO. Soul Embrace 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with its well written and it should be use i was just making sure the comparison had been made :) and i didnt bother to google it for some reason. SECProto 11:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Trying to assume good faith. JDG, where did you get that sentence? Maybe you weren't suggesting we actually add it to the article, since you knew it was an exact copy from EB? If you look at the Britannica article [1] it is pretty much an exact copy.

• Us: "Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan has sold more than 58 million albums, written more than 500 songs recorded by more than 2,000 artists, performed all over the world, and has raised the standard for lyric writing over a nearly 45-year career."
• EB: "Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan sold more than 58 million albums, wrote more than 500 songs recorded by more than..." - cut off by the 75 word limit.

The paraphrased version "Dylan has been called the Shakespeare of his generation, and has sold more than 58 million albums so far in his career" is still plagiarism. Plagiarizing EB is bad news. I vote for not making the Shakespeare mention at all in the lead section. We should instead cite a specific writer who has made the comparison in the body. Rhobite 23:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I realised that as well when monicasdude cited it as being in EB. I looked it up, and according to http://www.interferenza.com/bcs/interw/97-oct16.htm , it was the NY Times which first called him the shakespeare of his generation. I dont know how reliable that source is, however, and its hard to find it on other places that arent also exact copies of the EB article. SECProto 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A search of the Historical New York Times archive didn't turn up the quotation. Maybe it's not an exact quote, maybe I missed it, or maybe it's misattributed to the Times. A citation of the Times article would be nice. Rhobite 01:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The Times' own online search facility (as available to subscribers) indicates that it has never called Dylan (or anyone else) the "Shakespeare of his generation"; in fact, it doesn't ever seem to have used that phrase (at least since 1850). "Shakespeare of his times" doesn't show up, either; and the only hit on both Bob Dylan and Shakespeare that looks even remotely (very remotely) like a source is a letter to the editor. interferenza.com is a usually reliable Dylan fansite, but the phrase there is from an unsourced English translation of a German-language article/interview. Monicasdude 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Browsing around, i have found that it was actually Christopher Ricks who "compared Dylan with Shakespeare, Donne, and Keats." I guess it was in some obscure book or another. I dont actually care much, but im procrastinating from other things so i searched a bit. SECProto 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know anything about Dylan, but a search for "Shakespeare of his*" and "bob dylan" does not appear in the ProQuest archives of the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Post, or Chicago Tribune (all of which go up through the 1980s at least and 1990s for some). --Fastfission 03:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was laying a trap. I was expecting a lot of people to raise shouts of "pathetically POV" and "nauseating purple prose", at which point I would grin and say "It's the first line in Encyclopedia Britannica's Dylan article". I'm very surprised at the mostly positive reactions here. I've had statements in this article and proposed statements here in Talk shot down dead that were far less assertive and "purple". Really makes you think about what's "appropriate for an encyclopedia". It's a reminder of how far off so many people commenting here have been, the ones who want to portray D. basically as just another singer-songwriter with a Wikipedia entry. JDG 06:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Rhobite 13:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, please. That policy has to do with edits on live enc. pages. This here is a little Talk go-round, you know? JDG 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you were trying to trick people and you admitted it doesnt solve it. he has been called the shakespeare of his generation, if by noone else, than by the EB. it could still be added in the article somewhere. SECProto 23:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about adding it; I was indeed fooled. But I also agree that it seems like a very good line for characterising Dylan's status. Tix 05:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Street-Legal's Original Reception

Under the 70s section, it says "Dylan's 1978 album Street-Legal was generally well reviewed." Is this true? I thought the opposite was true, but I may be mistaken. Just checking. Tix 21:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are right, and I just changed it. I am fond of the album, myself, but I remember wondering what was wrong with the critics that they gave it such a chilly reception. Carlo 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Love & Theft Reception

Do any respectable critics compare Love and Theft to Self-Portrait and New Morning, except perhaps to compare the favorable aspects of the most former to the most latter? I understand if you don't like the album, but every critic I've read has loved it. There are people out there who don't care for Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde and Blonde, but this is not mentioned in the article. Unless the dislike for this album is very widespread among people who care (it isn't), I think vague accounts of public dislike should be omitted. Instead, quote or paraphrase a respectable critic's negative review of Love and Theft. That's all. Tix 21:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the POV improvements. My opinion is irrelevant, but also - how the hell is New Morning a "weaker work"? Who wrote that? New Morning is a fine album! Rhobite 22:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that they shouldn't be compared - L&T was recieved very well critically. SECProto 22:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I googled for: Zimmerman or Zimmermann ? Bob Dylan

And Google [.de] asked me: Meinten Sie: Zimmermann or Zimmermann ? Bob Dylan

[Translation: Did you mean: Zimmermann or Zimmermann ? Bob Dylan]

What I really meant was "Zimmerman". Since Google could not solve the problem, you certainly can: Is Bob Dylan's original name "Zimmermann" or "Zimmerman" ? Thanks for your help. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

• "Zimmerman"- and on the subject of names, I'd like to know why Sara Dylan is refered to as Lownds,i.e; "Dylan and Lownds had a son named Jesse Dylan" The woman's name has been Dylan for the past 40 years!Lion King 10:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)|

• How about "They had a son..."—Gaff ^ta?? 16:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Better still, how about calling Sara Dylan , Sara Dylan Lion King 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Lion King said "Zimmerman". So I ask "Lion King" to give me a reference for his claim. Have you searched the Internet for the right spelling of "Zimmerma..." before you posted your answer ? Or did you just post an answer since you thought you should be the first such contributor ? OK: I don't believe your answer ! So what do you do now ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

SECProto wrote in regard to the name "Zimmerma...":

"Zimmerman. people spell their names different ways, he spelt his that way. you can see it on any number of sites, and probably in that autobiography thing of his as well. But this is no answer to a question, which was aime´d to solve a Wikipedia problem. (Sit back, suck, and think again, thanks for your patience.)

>>> "Zimmerman. people spell their names different ways, he spelt his that way. <<< And so now I spell that you have no idea of what I meant. What I was asking for was: What writing is correct: "Zimmermann" or "Zimmerman" ?

As I said, he spells his Zimmerman. "Zimmerman" is the correct way to write his name. And by the way, I do know exactly what you're asking, and if i don't its not because of me,its because of your odd terminology. SECProto 02:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

HANS!! why are you taking issue with SECProto? You say you don't believe my answer, then say "so what do you do now?" I've told you the correct spelling of ZIMMERMAN, in relation to Bob Dylan- it's on his BIRTH CERTIFICATE (SEE BELOW) What more do want?? Lion King 22:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• My reference emantates from a copy of his birth certificate; Name; Zimmerman, Robert, Allen. Sex; Male, Color; Jewish. This can be viewed on "Tales Of Rock And Roll- Highway 61 Revisted." BBC Publications. Lion King 14:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So "Brockhaus Enzyklopädie" was wrong, and Wikipedia was right. That was what my question aimed to. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

What type of harmonica does Bob usually use?

I have never played the harmonica and don't know anything about the instrument. Any help would be appreciated.--Secret Agent Man 16:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

He generaly uses a "Marine Band" - made by Hohner. Lion King 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)P.S.- The "type" of this harmonica is known as a (10 hole) Richter, two reed, "Diatonic"- this means a selection of notes, that have no sharps or flats- C major would be; C D E F G A B Lion King 17:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out [++++Pennebaker's++++] Documentary on Bob Dylan, Sept. 2, 1970 in D.A. Pennebaker' office in New York City

Does he really? That's odd - a Marine Band isn't a Blues Harp. Blues harps have a specific configuration that enables you to play in "second position," which is standard for the blues. I didn't know that. Carlo 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there ya go, you live an learn, now you know that as a rule he uses a Marine Band, don't forget to tell all your friends:-) Lion King 15:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Dylan has always used Marine Bands - same with Jack and Woody. The only "Blues Harp" I've ever heard on a Dylan album is on "Obviously 5 Believers" on "Blonde" and that's played by Charlie McCoy! Jake.

I think he used a Blues Harp on "Outlaw Blues", but yes, generaly he uses a Marine Band. PJ.

The Blues Harp is a specific model of harmonica, also made by Hohner, not to be confused with "blues harp" in general, which is a style of harmonica playing, i.e. playing in second position. The Hohner Blues Harp is made to facilitate "bending" notes, which is necessary to play in second position, but you can bend on any diatonic harp. Dylan often plays harp in second position -- i.e., "blues harp" -- but he plays Marine Bands. --Ajsomerset 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Best of Bob Dylan album

Just a heads up, there has been a new article created (by an anon) entitled The Best of Bob Dylan, an album to be released on November 15, 2005. I am not sure about the accuracy or anything, but I thought I should notify everyone here. Akamad 07:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Great! I could use another copy of "Blowin' In The Wind" - I seem to have misplaced all of mine! Lion King 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sermonette

Initially, there was some onstage bantor from 1980 given without citation. Now we have a link, so it meets WP:V. However, I'm still having trouble seeing what this adds to the article other than a few more words. It seems to me that just saying he gave sermonettes is explanatory enough; quoting some particular slightly rambling example doesn't seem to add any useful content. Thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts are, that you don't like being corrected - is this an article or a competion? no offence, just an observation. Lion King 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make here?

Certainly a quotation without a source is inappropriate, but not every quote that has a source is relevant. Are you advocating that this quote is or is not helpful? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Helpful. Be lucky, Lion King 21:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think the quote is a nice addition to the article. I feel the best editors concern themselves not only with things like factuality, strong sourcing, thoroughness, but also with the tone and timbre, even the atmospherics, of an article-- particularly in non-sci/tech articles where the human factor is central. This is an article on a major American arts/culture figure and it invites some color, just as the arts themselves are colorful and even often frivolous. To capture this, we need to be willing to sometimes step out of our strictly "encyclopedic" voice (as, for instance, the Enc. Brit. very often does on topics like these), and this amusing snippet from Bob's stage pronunciamentos, to me, is perfect. Of course, in going for some color and atmospherics, editors will whiff big time once in a while. If many feel the "sermonette" is actually a faulty try for color, I certainly wouldn't put up a struggle. JDG 23:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Judas?

Dear Lion King: No, I’m not deaf but you appear to be very stupid. No, seriously, you are obviously a very talented and committed Wikipedia contributor. We Wikipedia contributors should be able to resolve our disagreement through reasoned discussion, not through abuse when someone disagrees with us. The way I hear the Manchester concert is that a male voice shouts “xxxx you” (I actually think he shouts “Fuck you” but the first word is not clear.) Then immediately afterwards another man (Keith Butler? Jon Cordwell? Who knows?) shouts “Judas!” I’ve listened to it dozens of times and I strongly believe the two voices are different. I don’t believe anyone shouts “Hey you, Judas!” You look at any biography of Dylan. The reason this concert has become a key moment in Dylan’s history is that someone shouted “Judas!” They accused him of betraying folk music. (There is even a Dylan fanzine to which I contribute named “Judas!”. It is not named “Hey you Judas!”) To change the words to “Hey you, Judas!” is in my view inaccurate, and seriously dilutes the most famous heckle in the history of rock music. Does anybody else hear what I hear? Best wishes, Mick gold 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mick: Firstly, let me say that my edit comment was jocular, and was'nt meant to be offensive. On my bootleg, (the C D,like your good self,I only hear, "You") I hear quite clearly the same voice, call. "Hey you" followed by Judas. But what preceeds the main "heckle" is not important, take it out by all means, not worth falling out over Mate, is it? Be lucky, Lion King 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lion King, I appreciate your magnanimity. Mick gold 23:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Are the "Categories" entries correct ?

The "Categories" at the bottom of this page say that Dylan is an American poet and singer. No doubt about this. But the Categories also claim that Dylan is an Ukrainian-, Lithuanian-, and a Russian-American. How can this logic work ? Maybe he is also a German-American ? I doubt that. So this is a task for you Dylan specialists: Please remove nonsense from the "Categories" at the bottom of this Wiki entry. Thank you. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (13122005)

While I tend to think most of these compound ethnic categories are rather inane and pointless, that's a general quarrel with the categories. Given that they do exist, their criteria is... well, too fuzzy... but roughly people who have at least 1/4 of their ancestry from a given place, prior to American immigration. That seems to be satisfied for Dylan. Likewise for the Jewish one, which sort overlaps with those others as a pseudo-ethnic/national category. But if Dianne Feinstein and Sandra Dee are Russian-American, Dylan might as well be too (actually, Dee is basically entirely wrong, being Rusyns not Russian ancestry... but like I say, the ethnic categories are sort of garbabe). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's any help, Dylan's paternal Grandfather was, Zigman Zimmerman, born 1875 in Odessa- that's in Russia innit? Lion King 12:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More ROHA random changes

For some reason now he's got it through his head to delete the Weatherman (organization) reference. I don't think the reference is absolutely essential (and certainly doesn't belong in the lead where it once appears). But their naming after a Dylan song is interesting, notable, and verifiable. So please help me keep it around until ROHA tires of his random change du jour (do any of these bete noir's have any logic behind them at all? It sure looks like he picks some sentence completely at random, then edit wars to put in a slightly less good version of that, every single time he edits: the "one-sentence lead", spelling of Zimmerman, which instruments Dylan plays, etc). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 13:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am with you all the way, on this Lulu. I see no, nor can I find, ANY logic in ANY of his edits! It is my considered opinion, that his motive is just "naked disruption" and is tantamount to vandalism. To put it bluntly- he is getting on my tits! Lion King 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked one of his IPs this morning.. I'm going to start doing this more often if he keeps making pointless edits. Along with the bad edits, he does ask one good question though: what other instruments does Dylan play? Rhobite 16:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Dylan can also play 5-String Banjo and Autoharp.Lion King 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Some say Dylan also plays the alphorn. But this has still to be confirmed. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (16122005)

Hans, LOL! Lion King 11:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And according to the liner notes for Shot of Love, he also plays a percussion instrument. - Akamad 19:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC

Your reactions disappointed me. I thought that at least one of you would have confirmed that Bob Dylan is a musician playing three instruments and saying more than we could think. I am dissapointed. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (13122005)

Keep taking the tablets sunshine! (HARO) Lion King 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"ROHA" has a history of unilaterally imposing changes, and a block of a single IP will be ineffective. When he was doing this to Adolf Hitler, I range-blocked him once, and that appeared to do the trick. It may have to come to this here, too. I would, however, prefer that someone who's familiar with Dylan to do this if needed, but let me know if it turns out that my intervention is necessary. --Nlu (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it if necessary. His last edit about the instruments was sort of useful, but if he starts messing with interwiki tags again or making useless edits so he can write an edit summary, I'll block. He uses Deutsche Telekom dialups so we have to be careful about collateral damage. Rhobite 15:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to User Nlu: I think that you have a rather clear idea why I use to remove the introductory propaganda picture of Adolf Hitler from the English Wikipedia article. The reason why you do not mention my arguments within this context is obvious to me, but not to most of the other readers of the article about Bob Dylan. So I will explain my reasons here: Whenever I remove the propaganda photograph from the "Adolf Hitler" article, I do it since propaganda should not be spread all over the Internet world by the Wikipedia. While when I make a change on the "Bob Dylan" article, I do it because I think that the readers should be informed about Bob Dylan in a neutral way. Dylan is a singer, a songwriter, a musician, a poet, and a composer. He is also a player of the guitar, piano, and the harmonica. He is certainly one of the most important artists of the twentieth century. And exactly for that reason, his name must not be misused for personal purposes. At least not within the Wikipedia. To mention the Weatherman (organization) within this article does neither have to do with Dylan's life, nor with his music, nor with his poetry. I am sure that if you could ask Dylan about something like the "Weatherman", he would ask you: What is this ? I know that it is tempting to add lines of pure personal interest to a Wikipedia article, but if this would be raised to a rule, then the Wiki would very soon consist of personal interests, and soon lose its objectivity. To cut it short: The Wikipedia is not a good place for personal interests, neither for propaganda (as in the case of Hitler), nor for personal and unjustified preferences (as in the case of Dylan). Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (16122005) PS: Final questions: "But their naming after a Dylan song is interesting". -- For whom ? For what ? For the Weatherman (organization) ? For the Wikipedia readers ? For you ? -- For Bob Dylan ?

Odessa is in Ukraine!

"To mention the Weatherman (organization) within this article does neither have to do with Dylan's life, nor with his music, nor with his poetry. "

It obviously DOES have to do with his influence. That isn't relevant?

You are completely right. Bob Dylan's work had an impact on about two million people. Among them may be 20 thousand musicians. Among these may there be twenty artists who have the status as a musical superstar. But, as long as you are inable to count all the twenty superstars by their name, you should not introduce into this Wikipedia article names like the Weatherman (organization). If you can mention only one single incident when Dylan referred to them, let me hear about this. I must be more precise: When he ever had a far-off smell of something like the members of the Weatherman (organization), then, please, let him know. As long as some of you only claim that Dylan had an impact on some organization which he himself does not have the slightest idea of, as long as that you should not mention or claim that Dylan had an "influence" on them. I know, I can be infuenced by my girlfriend to do this or that, but I would never come up with the strange idea that she has ever heard of a guy named Bob Dylan. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (08052006)

In the first place, we have your truly bizarre assertion that Bob Dylan's work had impact on about 2 million people and 20,000 musicians. How many zeroes are those numbers missing?

In the second place, your assertion that an artist's influence depends on whether or not he has HEARD of the people he has influenced make no sense whatsoever. I mean NONE. Influence goes one way. The question isn't whether the Weathermen have influenced Bob Dylan - it's whether he has influenced them, and even if he has never HEARD of them, that influence remains. I guarantee you that William Shakespeare has not heard of a single current human being that he has influenced. I guess, according to you, he therefore has none Carlo 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, lets simplify my argumentation. Lets concentrate on the "Weatherman (organization)". Can you please give distinct references from the literature or from the Internet, as to in what way Bob Dylan's work influenced the "Weatherman (organization)" except that it _is said_ to have chosen its name from a Dylan song ? What in particular was the influence that Dylan is said to have had on this organization ? As long as you cannot give substantial references, there is no reason to mention this organization within this article. Bob Dylan had an influence on Joan Baez (and vice versa), on the civil rights movements (which the "Weatherman (organization)" was not part of), on literature and music. For this, we have more than enough references. But can you give good references for his impact on the "Weatherman (organization)" ? I remind you of the fact that in the current version of this article it simply says: "As a sign of the political influence of Dylan's lyrics, in 1969 the militant Weatherman radical group took their name from a line in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" ("You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows")." -- Now, it claims that there was "political influence", since a "radical group" picked up its NAME from a Dylan song. But where is the reference for Dylan's "political influence" on this group ? Everyone and every organization can pick up a line or a word from a Dylan song as a NAME (as long as they are not copyrighted), but that does not say Dylan's work had any "political influence" on them. If you disagree, then please let me and the other readers know. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (13052006) PS: By the way, the numbers two million, twenty thousand, and twenty were my only random contributions on this discussion page.

From The New York Times] "The film notes that the group took its name from a Bob Dylan song with the lyric You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. The song, by the way, is Subterranean Homesick Blues; its title describes the feelings of some of the Weathermen, who were forced to live underground for much longer than they had expected." Alias Flood 03:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But where is the REFERENCE ? That kind of citation "...that the group took its name from a Bob Dylan song..." is exactly what I criticized in my previous post: "Everyone and every organization can pick up a line or a word from a Dylan song as a NAME (as long as they are not copyrighted), but that does not say Dylan's work had any "political influence" on them." -- Picking up a name is no substantial reference. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (13052006)

What is the difference between a reference and a citation to you? Because to me, there is no difference. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the Weatherman organization had been affected politically by Bob Dylan, but if they took their name from him, why not say it? SECProto 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that they were influenced sufficiently by Dylan to take their name from him. I think it highly unlikely that an organisation of this kind would take its name from someone or something to which they could not relate or empathise. There does appear to be a certain amount of pedantry over the semantics of that with which other editors consensually agree. Alias Flood 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"What is the difference between a reference and a citation to you?" -- Here is a simple example that hopefully clarifies the difference: "Euclid proved the infinitude of prime numbers." -- This I call a citation. "Here is Euclid's proof: [Insert here Euclid's mathematical-logical proof of the statement]". -- This I call a reference. The difference between the two should be obvious. To cut this example down to the current context of the Dylan-influenced-the-"Weatherman" discussion is this: "Dylan influenced the "Weatherman"". -- This I call a citation. "Here is Dylan's influence on the "Weatherman" [Insert here sources of that statement]". -- This I call a reference. I hope that this example makes clear that there is a fundamental difference between a citation and a reference: A citation may consist of everything that you want, a reference is the essence (the pointer to the root, the origin) of a statement or claim. For this reason, the quotation from the NYT is a citation, but not a reference. You also asked: "but if they took their name from him, why not say it?" -- This is a valid argument. I answer: You are right, they took their name from a Dylan song, but so what? Would this allow us to mention all the people or organizations that ever picked up a word from a Dylan song to mention them in this article? I think no. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (15052006)

I would say yes, any organization which took its' name from a Dylan song could be mentioned in the Bob Dylan article. There can't be that many. And if there are too many, we could create another article called "Organizations which take their name from Bob Dylan lyrics" and just link to that from this article. SECProto 11:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the story is with this article, but there seems to be a battle royale over every little thing. Sheesh. Carlo 23:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dylan Radio show

It seems Dylan is going to have his own radio show. - Akamad 08:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

saw that. sounds cool. SECProto 23:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

At what point does personal spite become simple vandalism?

User:Lulu has once again removed an indisputably accurate, well-sourced statement of fact from the article, making a personal attack on me in the edit summary. What's particularly notable about this one is that it's a statement he acknowledged as accurate on September 23 on this talk page: "But I guess if the briefness of the exclusively evangelical touring is highlighted, that's OK to include." No sources for his change, of course. If removing statements that you acknowledge are accurate and appropriate from an article simply because of your well-established personal dislike of another editor doesn't qualify as bad faith editing, what does? Monicasdude 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that Monicasdude is also back to his "wikistalking" behavior. Just before launching this latest POV crusade, he went to my talk page, and put in some silly insults against me. I have not communicated with Monicasdude in any way for many months (not even on this talk page), nor hardly edited this page even. So I presume that he launched the invective on my page as some sort of "opening shots" for his new revision attempts. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a funny way of noting I responded to an entirely unprovoked, factually inaccurate personal attack regarding me you posted on your talk page. Monicasdude 21:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

monic weren't you originally opposed to the idea that he was briefly very religious? or that might've been someone else. Anyway, i went on olof's file, and the couple concerts i clicked on seemed to be all christian related. edit seems fine to me if the word "briefly" is inserted in there somewhere, like "briefly, in 1979-1980, dylan's tour were entirely christian msuic" or soemthing... although christian music isn't really right, seems to imply it was only intended for a christian audience. whatever. SECProto 22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think Dylan's intensely evangelical period can't be denied, and I pretty much go along with the argument put forth by Dylan biographers like Clinton Heylin and Howard Sounes, poet Christopher Ricks, and critic Paul (Crawdaddy) Williams that much of Dylan's songwriting since that period ended incorporates less conventional expression of religious themes. I originally wrote (and user:Lulu agreed with) "When touring from the fall of 1979 through the spring of 1980, Dylan refused to play secular music," which is undisputed anywhere but here. But factual accuracy doesn't seem to be much of a concern in this argument anymore, note that user:Lulu reinstated the (utterly ridiculous, completely unsourced) paragraph I deleted regarding Lowell George. Since that poor guy died in June 1979, it's hard to imagine he wrote a song about what Dylan did in the fall of 1979. Monicasdude 22:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I did restore a paragraph written by someone else that was removed by Monicasdude in what appears to be part of his same old pattern. If editors other than Monicasdude feels the paragraph is flawed, I will be happy with their improvments; I just don't put a lot of faith in Monicasdude's edits, given his history. I don't know the Lowell George song in question, so really cannot comment on the fact. SECProto's suggestion about "briefly" seems good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And I don't give any credence to your claims here about your motives. Do you have any reason to to dispute that Lowell George died in June 1979, months before the events he supposedly wrote about in the song mentioned? This isn't exactly an obscure point; all you had to do to check was click the wikilink in the article. You reverted edits, out of malice demonstrated by your personal attacks, simply because I made them, even though the factual assertions are unchallenged outside of this talk page. Claiming that Lowell George, or anyone else, wrote about events occurring after his death so plainly fails the verifiability standard as to require no debate about removal. Monicasdude 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in that case, unless someone can dispute Monicasdude's claim, then that comment should be removed from the article. - Akamad 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

On looking back, i see that the sentence says "fall of 1979 to spring of 1980". when i wrote here earlier, i thought it had said "1979 and 1980". monicasdude's edit looks fine (including removal of that paragraph). SECProto 00:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Lowell George song: Monicasdude has long stated that Dylan became Christian (or at least Christian-influenced) significantly before his Saved tour. So George may have known this before the Fall 1979 tour, and before George's death (even, e.g. earlier in 1979). But I don't know the date on the George song, which would obviously be germane (and is not in his article). But even if not George's song, the Lennon song seems relevant, and the general comment of the paragraph. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Saved tour was in 1980, not 1979; that album wasn't recorded until February 1980 and released in June 1980. Lowell George died in June 1979; the album including the song in question was released before his death, and various online sources put its recording date in late 1978. By all reliable accounts, Dylan's "born-again" experience was in early 1979, and he didn't record his first album of evangelical songs, Gotta Serve Somebody, until May 1979. There's no credible timeline that fits with that wholly unsourced Lowell George story, no citation of any evidence that the song was meant to refer to Dylan, just a snatch of lyrics apparently referring to a pious hypocrite -- hardly an unusual figure in a pop song. User:Lulu should apply the same standards for sourcing to comments he agrees with as for those he disagrees with; and it's not up to other editors to disprove unsourced, plainly implausible statements. Monicasdude 02:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude back at obstructionism

I guess it had to happen. Anyway, I made the one word improvement of removing the spurious word "violent" from the description of Weatherman (organization). I don't think it's untrue as a description, it just has no connection to the Dylan article (there is some POV issue there, since they only bombed property, never people, and opinions differ on whether that constitutes "violence"). We don't need to try to push readers to think the "right" thing about any given thing we mention with irrelevant adjectives. What's notable in this article is that they're named after a Dylan lyric, not anything else about the organization (well, "radical" probably gives minimal descriptive context). Likewise, we don't string a bunch of adjectives in front of Duluth when we mention it, not even true ones. Readers are welcome to read about the town on their own.

Obviously, one word is, well, one word. But Monicasdude's old pattern of rolling back changes by other editors is the annoying same-old same-old that we needed to RfC before. Anyway, please keep a watch on this change for me... I can't fix it again without 3RR. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lulu personalizes another editing dispute

There is no dispute that the Weather Underground was a violent organization. Every editor who has worked on this paragraph, until User:Lulu's edit today, has included a characterization of the group. The existing text, which simply and accurately described the groups as "violent" without characterizing their motives, represented a working compromise that was acceptable to all involved until today. User: Lulu's personalization of the dispute is inappropriate and constitutes yet another display of personal spite on his part, which he regularly displays against editors, here and elsewhere, who do not treat his opinions with the respect he believes they deserve. I have no doubt that the edit warring and inappropriate personalization of disputes that user:Lulu promotes and provokes will continue here, but there remains no justification for removing accurate references from this article. Monicasdude 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

agree with monicasdude here, they were violent. gives an understanding of what they were without reading their article. SECProto 16:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I'll live with it. But what would you think of adding the adjective "Cold" to Duluth, and "1851-founded" to University of Minnesota, and "Quaker" to Joan Baez (etc) when we first mention them... all true facts (and less contentious than the one at issue), and all probably more germane to Dylan than the Weatherman adjective. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

i see your point, it is a very good one. and to let you know, i would support "cold" but not the other two :P just my opinion, i have no reasons to back it up. SECProto 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oeuvre

The "oeuvre" link to wiktionary seems unsightly and unnecessary to me, especially in the intro paragraph. Perhaps it should be "de-linkified," or if it's a word that needs to be defined for most readers, it probably shouldn't be in the opening paragraph at all and should be replaced with a synonym. Minor, I know, but can't hurt to ask. Tix 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Be bold (WP:BOLD). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Tix 21:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Weatherman section

Hi all. The ROHA editor recently removed the Weatherman section again. Perhaps we should discuss (and hopefully reach a consensus) as to whether or not to keep that paragraph. In my opinion, the paragraph should be kept, as it does help explain the spread of political influence of Dylan's music. ROHA stated earlier that: "To mention the Weatherman (organization) within this article does neither have to do with Dylan's life, nor with his music, nor with his poetry." I disagree with this statement as I believe it certainly does have a lot to do with his music, considering that the group got the name from a Dylan song. - Akamad ^{Merry Christmas to all!} 06:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, of course keep. I had a disagreement about the exact phrasing (see above), but no one other than ROHA on his quest of the week has suggested the random deletion. It's just as nonsensical as his last quest to remove mention of the instruments Dylan plays. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lotus-Eater, are you the official archivist of Bob Dylan's works, or are you simply a fan of Bob Dylan ? If you are the official archivist of Bob Dylan's works (authorized by the master himself), then I will withdraw. But as long as you are only one Fan among others, I will have a problem with you, and you will have a problem with me. Meaning: Your voice does not count more than any other voice. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (03012006) PS: Sorry, I forgot to answer Akamad's claim that "it (the mentioning of the Weatherman organization) certainly does have a lot to do with his music, considering that the group got the name from a Dylan song" -- But one of my dogs also got his name from a very early Dylan song. Should I for that reason mention my dog within this Wikipedia article about "Bob Dylan" ? If you would like to have mentioned your "Weathermen", then add a link at the end of this article -- I will not delete it.

But the Weathermen are a notable organisation, your dog is not. - Akamad 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right. And what does the "Weatherman organization" qualify to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article about Bob Dylan ? Is it that they picked up a line from a Dylan song ? Is it that you think that picking up a line from a Dylan song makes an "organization" a more notable one ? Or is it simply that you think that referring to a Dylan line makes an obscure organization like the Weathermen more worthy being mentioned within this article ? Dylan has *nothing* to do with this group, and this group has nothing at all to do with Dylan and his work. My dog will be my witness. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (03012006)

The Weatherman group by themselves are a notable organisation. A glance at their article will prove that. That is independent of their name, and their chosen name does not, in my opinion, increase their notability. The reason for their inclusion in this article is because they chose their name from the Dylan song. Thus, they are a notable organisation, that were influenced enough by Dylan that they chose to name themselves after a line from one of his songs. - Akamad 06:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Weatherman isn't an obscure organization to anyone who is familiar with radicalism in the 60s. I've heard of them, and I wasn't even born when they were around. Let's keep the reference. ROHA, you'll have to focus your efforts elsewhere. Rhobite 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"ROHA, you'll have to focus your efforts elsewhere." -- You will certainly be directing me to where I have to search. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- ersetze AT durch @ ) (05012006)

I'd say that the Weathermen organization is notable enough to be mentioned here. Recent coverage of Dylan's new XM radio show frequently mentions them. Here's an example from The Times. SlapAyoda 16:36, 3 May 2006 (PST)

Paul Clayton

Hey. I was just listening to bob dylan earlier, and Percy's Song came on. I looked it up, and apparently in one version, he says he took the basic guitar or something from Paul Clayton. So I looked up paul clayton and made a short page on him. I was just wondering how he could be linked to from this page or any other so that it isn't orphaned? SECProto 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Write up a short page on "Don't Think Twice"; it's generally acknowledged that Dylan based "DTT" on Clayton's adaptation of a traditional song called "Who's Gonna Buy Your Chickens When I'm Gone." Clayton really improved the source material . . . . Monicasdude 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright issue

I was just wondering where that image was taken from. It says on the page that it is a "Private photo". Does that mean it was taken by one of the audience members, possibly JDG himself (since he uploaded it)? If this is the case, then JDG owns the copyrights to it and can release it under the GDFL, which means the image can be kept. - Akamad 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the "private photo" description was entirely inaccurate, and the authorship (and therefore copyright status and our ability to claim fair use) are indeterminate. Jkelly 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It was sent to me by an acquaintance in 1998. I took it to be a photo, hence the phrase "private photo" in the image information. It turns out that it's a still from a private video. This difference has no bearing on its usage status for Wikipedia. It is plainly Fair Use. Unfortunately, Jkelly is allowing himself to be used by Monicasdude in the latter's neverending quest to discomfit those who stand in the way of his sole control of this article. JDG 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just being sent the photo by an acquaintance doesn't quite constitute proper release. This acquaintance might have intended it only for JDG's private use, nor for republication. If JDG can get permission from his acquaintance to release it as GFDL or PD, that should clear it up. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Denying secular turn

Unfortunately, the issue that promoted Monicasdude's RfC, months of discussion over compromise language, repeated page protection, and all the rest, has returned again. Monicasdude is again taking out any reference to Dylan's early-1980s return to recording secular material, after the brief late-1970s/earyl-1980s period of recording Christian songs. See a few of his recent edits to this effect ([2], [3]). I'm really frustrated about how to respond to this, or if there's some way to avoid the manaical edit-warring that he appears to enjoy on this topic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You might consider sticking to facts and avoiding personal attacks, although those haven't been your habits here. Anybody who reads the article can see that I didn't take out "any reference" to Dylan's post-1980 recording of secular material. What is at the center of the dispute is your insistence that the article reflect your personal opinion that Dylan's songwriting has been almost entirely secular for the last 20 years, even though you have never cited critical sources reflecting that opinion, and have repeatedly deleted from the article quotations from and references to prominent writers about Dylan who disagree with that opinion (justifying the deletions as "original research," which is nonsense in terms of Wikipedia policies. Even Empire Burlesque, the album described as "consistently secular" in the paragraph you reinstated, was described by Allen Ginsberg as marked by "judgmental Jehovaic theism."

If you stopped personalizing editing disputes and started complying with NPOV, NOR, and verifiability, this dispute would be over. Instead, you repeatedly promote the insertion of obvious nonsense into the article -- like your insistence a few weeks back that the article should include an unsourced claim that Lowell George wrote a song about events taking place after his death -- simply because it gives you an excuse to tee off on me. This argument is just another example; you avoid the point that the text you reinserted is undeniably factually inaccurate, in favor of describing me as "maniacal." That's not good behavior, that's not complying with Wikipedia policies, that's not good faith editing. It's impossible to see as anything other than spite and malice, after months and months of this vendetta. Monicasdude 20:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents, but I think that at least in this particular case, I side with Monicasdude. I don't think that that paragraph is necessary nor verifiable enough. It's pretty shaky to say that his songs became more and more secular, "culminating" in secularism on Empire Burlesque. I'm not even clear on what that particular clause means exactly. Never mind all that though; I don't think this paragraph is necessary to the article nor very helpful. It is already mentioned in the previous paragraph that he returned to writing and performing "secular" songs. Tix 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I side with monic and tix regarding the verifiability of lulu's disputed contributions. If they cannot be reasonably verified then, as encouraged by Wikipedia, we must error on the side of exclusion. Also, from what I've seen, lulu's points of defense seem to constitute original research. Lastly, I think monic's reactions to lulu's contributions could of been handled better. Contributors to Wikipedia should restrict their contributions to factually-backed logical arguments, and not inject emotionally charged dialouge. The later does little to further the goals of the Wikipedia project. Spookfish 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like Lulu's version nor do i like Monicasdude's complete removal. His albums since then have been more secular than those three, you can't deny that. So i think trixity's compromise is perfect, as well as easier to read than the former versions. SECProto 19:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "secular" to describe any of Dylan's songs is inaccurate. Dylan's lyrics can always be interpreted from a religious perspective. The "Christian Trilogy" (Slow Train Coming, Saved, & Shot Of Love) contain lyrics that are more overtly Christian, evangelistic, and apocalyptic--as is some of the cover art, for that matter. The lyrics before & after those three are much less overtly Christian, &c., and more open to interpretations from other perspectives--Jewish, Zen, the blues, deconstructionist, Freudian, &c.

Let's remove the word "secular" from the article & say more explicitly & w/ more evidence from the lyrics themselves what we are hearing. James Nicol 03:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is rubbish to say that Dylan has become 'secular' since the 1980's. Infidels is perhaps just as religious as the three evangelical albums. Virtually every line of Jokerman is a Biblical quotation,look at 'Henry, John. "Links of Jokerman and Scripture." 5 September 1999 <http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~wparr/henryjokerman.html>.' Empire Burlesque is religious too, 'Something's Burning Baby' is underpinned by the line from 1 Peter 4.18 'where charity covers a multitude of sins' as well as the reference to matthew 4.4 and Luke 4.4 in 'you can't live by bread alone, you won't be satisfied' as well as to the tomb of Jesus in the next line 'you can't role away the stone if your hands are tied.' In Michael J. Gimour 'Tangled Up in the Bible: Bob Dylan & Scripture (continuum, ISBN 0-8264-1602-0) he lists in a table every quotation from scripture in the Dylan corpus. It takes over 30 pages. Every album, before and after the so-called evangelical period contains numerous biblical references and allusions. I think then, what we should say is that Dylan became more cryptic in the 1980's and that while religion was still a strong influence upon his work he choose to express it differently, he moved away from the overt religious message of slow train, shot of love and saved and moved toward an under-current of religious imagery and language that perpetuated all of his songs. that this was misunderstood as a return to being secular is a crime, firstly because it certainly wasn't (those that believe it to be so probably do so because they are not familiar enough with the bible to notice the allusions or their significance) and secondly because it wasn't a return to anything because Dylan has always expressed a great deal of religion within his songs. (such as All along the Watchtower or With God on our Side.) look at Christopher Ricks, Visions of Sin, or at Pickering, Stephen. Bob Dylan Approximately: A Portrait of the Jewish Poet in Search of God (A Midrash). New York: David McKay Company, 1975.

PurpleGecko

• I agree with your basic point, but the question is, how to word it? "Cryptic" isn't right. There is a strong difference between the three gospel albums and the other stuff, although there is a lot of religious imagery throughout his career ("Gospel Plow" is on his first album), and frequent religious references in interview. But there is a strong difference between evangelicalism/fundamentalism, and a more general sort of spirituality. Carlo 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. 'Cryptic' is weak. I think perhaps it could be said that whereas in the 3 evangelical albums the religious meaning was clearly explicit the religious language in the later albums became more implicit. It was certainly there, but it required interpretation and a closer reading to find it. As such it was initally missed by the music press who were eager for a return to form from Dylan (a return that they believed had to be associated with a move away from his Christianity.) I think it is possible, for example, to read Jokerman without a religious meaning, whereas this is not true of the songs from the evangelical albums. For a chiefly secular music press that the religious content was not so explicit was appealing. They could say that Dylan was cleverly working a subtle religion into his songs (which is exactly what he was doing) rather than thinking he was some sort of evangelical fundamentalist preeching to his fans (which is exactly what he had been doing!) --PurpleGecko00 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

definitive

In Creative/Crash, Jimi Hendrix's version of All along the Watchtower is described as the definitive version, which word gets a link. Unfortunately the link points to the MTV show, there is no page defining "definitive" in existence. I don't think it is appropriate to create a new page in an encyclopedia to define what can be found in a dictionary, so have removed the link, leaving the wording NeilUK 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Live Show Statistics

I don't think these stats are necessary for the page. They are interesting, and should be linked to, but they only clutter up the main Bob Dylan page. Either make a page dealing with Dylan's live performances over the years, or only give an external link to the page you got these stats from. What do other people think? Tix 02:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lists of statistics should be removed from the article; aside from the clutter, they're fundamentally inaccurate, because the database they come from is seriously incomplete. As with many popular bands/artists, much of Dylan's performing career is well-documented, but the early years (roughly the first 20% of his career) are reported rather poorly. For 1961, as an example, the database shows only 39 appearances (although Dylan, by all accounts, performed many more dates than that), and includes songlists for only a half dozen of the 39 listed appearances. I don't believe -- I don't think anybody believes -- that Dylan played "Blowin' In The Wind" less than a dozen times in the 1960s; presenting statistics based on data so incomplete is not encyclopedic. Monicasdude 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with tix, they might be kind of interesting, but not important to an article on the man himself. seperate article or outside link. SECProto 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

Bob Landy is listed as a pen-name of Dylan, but Landy is a professional photographer who produced many pictures in the 60s, some of Dylan (most notably the covers of Nashville Skyline and Tarantula--w/ Dylan sitting at the piano in the seersucker coat). I have a book of Landy's work, and in it he jokes that people regularly assume that he is an alias of Dylan. Unless this Landy reference is to something else, it should be corrected.

Pseudonym used by Dylan on the album "Blues Project" (Elektra EKL 264, 1964) Monicasdude 16:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I was under impression that the photographer in question was Elliott Landy. Lion King 18:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• I was just about to correct that. That's my mistake; sorry for the mix-up.

Next edit war?

It looks like another edit war is approaching, since James Nicol has repeatedly tried to make major edits to the page, often with overtly POV statements, though not always so. I've reverted a few times already, but it doesn't seem anyone else agrees with me, since they simply keep on making minor edits right after Nicol has drastically changed the page. If I'm being shortsighted, let me know. Tix 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Like you, I disagree with a good deal of the new material inserted in Nicol's edit, which often has the NPOV/NOR problems you mention. On the other hand, much of the material Nicol deleted had the same sort of NPOV/NOR problems. I think it's better to deal with the problems individually rather than simply reverting a legitimately "Be Bold" edit; the article has certainly been bloated by excessively subjective material. I'll "restore" a few of Nicol's deletions of such material; see what you think. Monicasdude 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Monicasdude, some of the material deleted by Nicol are of POV nature. - Akamad 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess that i should join the discussion as i recently revised this article. My goal was to remove much of the bias & the shallow observations & unwarranted statements. I see Wikipedia as informative. Articles should stick to the facts, and where the facts come from, whenever possible, should be mentioned. Articles should not be hagiographic. Although those who write about a subject (Bob Dylan, Aristophanes, Lao Tzu, &c.) will probably be those who are interested in & admire said subject, the article must be willing to acknowledge all facets of the subject dispassionately: the good, the bad, the mediocre.

Greatly interested in Bob Dylan's work, I thought to look into Wikipedia's article. When i saw the number of vague & unwarranted statements (the countercultural stuff, all the citing of "critical response", &c.) plus the unreasonable & tasteless plugging of "Love & Theft", i chose to clean up the article. I may have left or included some of my own bias, but i tried not to write a statement that cannot be substantiated.

(By the way, although i know how to revise articles, i don't know how to enter my remarks here. I hope that i have done it correctly. If not, then please forgive & instruct.)James Nicol 03:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(Also, what does NPOV/NOR stand for?)James Nicol 03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. WP:NOR. Neutral point of view; no original research (which includes esthetic commentary). I agree, in general terms, with many of the revisions you made (and reinstated several of your major changes/deletions); but there were some serious problems in details (and POV) in some of the new material added, and, unfortunately, you unfortunately, undid some very painfully negotiated compromise language, especially with regard to Dylan's "born-again" period. I'm going to go back through the article tonight and, I expect, reinstate even more of your revisions. [But not Joan Collins ;-)] And, with that as a middle ground, we can all work on other differences and details. And, while I'm here, I'll note that I've again revised the contentiously argued history of Dylan's signing with Columbia: the only two people who were there for the event, Dylan and Hammond, both say in their autobiographies that Dylan signed on the same day he recorded with Carolyn Hester, which Columbia studio records list as September 29, 1961 (though some sources say September 30); and Robert Shelton, in No Direction Home, says Dylan told him about the signing on September 29. Monicasdude 04:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dude, for enlightening me about the terms & something of the minefield into which i've stepped. As to the "born-again" issue(s), please see above where i discuss, briefly, the frequent misuse of the term "secular". Although i don't think that this is needed in face-to-face discussions, w/ an issue like Christianity in contemporary America, perhaps we serious Wikipedia-Dylanists should announce our own religious stances to demonstrate no ulterior motives. As far as religion is concerned, i am a student of many but a non-believer in any. Many have maligned Dylan's evangelistic songs & many others have, usually for reasons of joint belief, touted them. I stand outside both those opinions. There are obviously songs (& performances) of quality on each of the albums in the born-again trilogy ("Slow Train", "I Believe In You", "Saved", "Every Grain Of Sand"), but one could hardly argue that any of them is more interesting than Bringing It All Back Home or Tangled Up In Blue while certainly being more interesting than, say, Knocked Out Loaded or Under The Red Sky.

I'd like to see this Wikipedia article show this kind of consideration &, when it proffers critical opinion, that it does so w/ great deliberation & substance. James Nicol 06:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry James Nicol, I guess I was being shortsighted a little bit. I won't stand in your way if you want to improve the article; just make sure you're careful you don't replace some of the currently Dylan-friendly POV with Dylan-critical POV. I honestly thought someone had vandalized the page when I read what it said about Masked & Anonymous originally. Yeah, it's probably crap by most film standards, but I don't think we can say that without qualification in an encyclopedia article. Who knows? Maybe the movie will age well. Whatever. Tix 08:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There it says: ...or request unprotection

"This page is protected from editing.

   * If the page is fully protected, only administrators can edit it; if it is semi-protected, only registered users can do so.
   * Why some pages are protected
   * Discuss this page with others or request unprotection"

Yes, I am requesting unprotection, since there was no reason given to _protect_ this article. As far as I know, this Wikipedia article is about Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan was born Robert Allen Zimmerman. Someone thought that this article should start with "Robert Allen Zimmerman" (also known as Bob Dylan... etc pp)

But I think this Wikipedia article should begin with "Bob Dylan" ... and so on. Now, some self-ordained administrator has blocked (not protected) this article. But I think, he will lose this game. Simply by the fact, that an article abaout Bob Dylan cannot start with the words "Robert Allen Zimmerman".

Okay: Would you please "unprotect" this article, so that we can correct this error ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Until you agree to abide by WP:3RR, all of your requests will be denied. --Nlu (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And I add: I fully accept WP:3RR and follow it in every line I write. But the one of you seems to have something misunderstood. A Wikipedia article about "Bob Dylan" must not begin with "Robert Allen Zimmerman, also known as Bob Dylan". And such an article must not include fan site stuff. Here is something for you, Nlu, to read and take into consideration: Wikipedia is an _encyclopedia_, it is not a sandbox. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

I will assume that you have finally learned your lessons, and therefore unprotect. But be aware that any violation of 3RR will be dealt with in a most severe manner. Given your history on this page and on Adolf Hitler, I don't hold much hope. I hope you prove me wrong. --Nlu (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Given your history on this page and on Adolf Hitler" -- It is very interesting that you here combine two very different pages: The Wiki article about Bob Dylan and the one about Adolf Hitler. You will have your reasons for that mixture, no doubt.

You should nonetheless take into consideration that you are just a Wikipedian, you have no rights except those which every Wikipedian has: To utter her or his personal opinion. Beyond this, you make use of your privilege as an admin. An admin is someone who can "protect" or (which makes no sense at all) "_semi_-protect" any Wikipedia article. This is what makes some admins to feel they are something special, but they are not. An admin, within the Wikipedia world, is not someone like a writer for the Encyclopedia Britanica or the German Brockhaus. No, s/he is just some writer. That is it. And this is all. So when someone like Nlu writes: "I will assume that you have finally learned your lessons" -- then I cannot but smile. S/he seems to have been thrown into a world that s/he does not really understand. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) PS: And by the way: Enter "define: Bob Dylan" in Google, then enter "define: Robert Allen Zimmerman". What you will find is: "Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman May 24, 1941) is widely regarded as one of America's greatest popular songwriters. Stephen Foster, Irving Berlin, Woody Guthrie, and Hank Williams are among the few songwriters similarly revered for their enduring contributions to the American oeuvre. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Allen_Zimmerman"

Due to your response and your continued edit war at Adolf Hitler, I will not assume good faith any more; your edit is being reverted (I am expressing no opinion whatsoever as to the merit of the edit), and the page is getting reprotected. You are nothing but a vandal. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

While I reverted the introduction of the Wiki article on Bob Dylan to the correct oririginal version >>Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman on May 24, 1941) is...<< the reader and contributor Nlu later reverted the introduction to the wrong entry >>Robert Allen Zimmerman, known as Bob Dylan (born May 24, 1941) is...<< and then blocked this article (since he thought he was right). Now, who deserves the name of a troll or vandal ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (09032006) PS: Note that he reverted my correction simply "Due to your response and your continued edit war at Adolf Hitler", not due to what I contributed to this Wiki article on "Bob Dylan". PPS: By the way, as soon as this article is freely editable again, I will erase fan stuff like "He remains an influential and popular artist; his most recent album of new songs, "Love and Theft", reached #5 on the charts in the US and #3 in Britain."

I don't understand why this is debatable. His legal name is "Dylan," not "Zimmerman." Thus, the first words must necessarily be "Bob Dylan." Then, and only then, can you say something about him being born "Zimmerman." I'm going ahead and changing it. Tix 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's debatable, but I have absolutely no desire to allow someone to walk into Wikipedia, disregard all of the rules (ROHA has in the past blatantly and intentionally violated both WP:3RR and WP:NPA and flaunted the fact that he's difficult to block due to his ever-changing IP). As I wrote, my revert is not on the merits; if a true legitimate editor puts in the change, I won't have any objection; the key point here is that a vandal should not be encouraged by allowing his unilateral decision to stick. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Bob Dylan" should be the first words of this article. However, ROHA is a troll and his primary goal here is to make provocative edits and insert personal commentary into edit summaries. For this reason I support the semi-protection. ROHA is free to register for an account if he wants to edit this article. Rhobite 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It has long been Wikipedia policy where someone has changed their name legally, is known by a shortened version of it, or has adopted a stage name, always to start a biographical article with their original name and follow the chronological changes in name in the opening paragraph, eg, X, (known later as Y) (born whenever) . It is not WP policy to start with a later name adopted and work backwards, in the form of X (born X) (born whenever). And it is contrary to all WP rules to include any other information in the bracketed DOB-DOD or born section. Writing "(born <name> in <whenever>) is absolutely not standard on WP. (Some editors of WP articles on film stars began adding in where people were born and died in the brackets. Those edits are all being deleted to confirm to standard.

WP standard biographical structure is followed in all WP articles and all articles that deviate from it, often due to the fact that an editor did not know the standard format, are being systematically rewritten to confirm to the standard format agreed by consensus. Hence the article on Tony Blair calls him by his full name in the opening, not Tony Blair. The article on Cary Grant names him as Archibald Leach and then explains that he adopted a different name. That is WP policy. Encyclopaedias by their nature have to follow the same format for naming, and not have each article written based on whims of individual pages. As per the standard format the opening has been rewritten to confirm to WP policy. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please link to the applicable policy. Bear in mind that Bob Dylan is not just a stage name. Also keep in mind that the manual of style is a set of guidelines, for which there may be special cases. Thanks. Rhobite 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while the applicable section of the MOS guideline begins by suggesting that the birth name should "usually" appear first, it goes on to state that "Alternatively, the birth name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym". Either way is allowed, and I think the consensus will be that this "alternative" reads better. Monicasdude 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. For everyone's reference, that comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Rhobite 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to back parenthetical remarks are inappropriate.. the lead section looks like a math problem. Makes you want to cross-multiply, doesn't it? Care to comment Jtdirl? Rhobite 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Go take a look at Cat Stevens. Maybe it could use an edit? it has neither his current legal name nor his birth name first, but rather his performing name. This article, the performer's stage name is also his current legal name. Thats 2/3, should it not start with that? personally, i could not care less. just a heads up, reference to an article that is in a different position on this issue. SECProto 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat Stevens' name is a separate (and much more complex) issue IMO. As to this article: I agree with Rhobite and others that the article should begin with Dylan's legal name—under which he has been known for the past 40 plus years, including virtually all his recording life, and up to the present. Sunray 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Lion King 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

IMO the article should start thus:
Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman on May 24, 1941) is an etc.

This is borne out by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), not in the pseudonym portion though, rather because Bob Dylan is his legal name.

To wit: "… the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph … In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

• (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …" MOS is a guideline, yes, but a good one.

The subjects full name in this case is Bob Dylan, right? (or is it in fact "Robert Dylan" oops, probably should have looked that one up) But anyway, doesn't matter, Robert or Bob, my point remains.

My favorite line on the page though is this: "Writers are not expected or required to follow all or any of these rules." With that in mind, it's still the right choice and I'll still stick to my guns. --Easter Monkey 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Dylan's legal name is Robert Dylan, "Bob" is his "performance" name, or how he is most "commonly known". Lion King 13:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. The article should start with Bob Dylan, he is not "known" as Robert except maybe to the IRS and the State Dept! Lion King

Nobel Nomination?

I've read that Bobby boy was, on more than one occasion, nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Does anyone know much about this? I didnt find anything searching the talk page, but it'd be great to see some facts discussed / posted on the article about Dylan's potential Laureate status. —This unsigned comment was added by Soorej (talk • contribs) .

There was a discussion on the matter here: Talk:Bob Dylan/archive 2#Nobel Prize in Literature Nomination. It was a short discussion, but it seems that nomination for a Nobel Prize isn't too special and not really worth mentioning on the page. - Akamad 05:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

They frighten me. Can a knowledgable contributor evaluate which of these are serving an encyclopedic function? Jkelly 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're intent on cutting back, I've suggested revisions at Talk:Bob_Dylan/Sandbox_Links, for lack of anywhere better. Monicasdude 06:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a very good start. Any reason it hasn't been implemented? Jkelly 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

as long as none of those links (especially the ones in misc.) aren't references in the wrong section, i would support those removals. SECProto 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Drug use?

Dylan used marijuana and may continue to do so, but there is a lot of controversy as to what other drugs he had taken. Perhaps a section on this?--24.20.181.127 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's do George W. Bush first. Monicasdude 05:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"List of people likened to Bob Dylan"

One of the few things -- the very few things -- that there's been a sustained consensus in this article was that the fairly arbitrary lists should be cut out, and, with virtually no dispute, they have been, making the article better and more readable. For reasons that make no sense to me, when the article List of people likened to Bob Dylan was nominated for deletion [4] here, the decision was made to "merge" the list into this article, even though only one (of about 15) of the editors in that debate thought it was appropriate. So one badly referenced paragraph was added, then the whole list added by another editor. The whole list is obviously inappropriate, the short version is just an arbitrary collection of white male guitar-playing over-50 Anglo-American singer-songwriters that misrepresents Dylan's influence. The funniest part of the whole thing is that the citation for Elvis Costello doesn't go to a page which likens him to Dylan -- it goes to an interview where Costello blasts critics for likening every halfway decent songwriter to Dylan. Is there any disagreement about the "merge" being a bad idea? Monicasdude 18:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if you include me. I've been "likened to Bob Dylan." Of course, I've never made more than beer money, but why should that make a difference? We could produce a list running into the millions, if we try.

I agree with you. Lists of people "like" Dylan, or "New Dylans" have amusement value, and that's all the value they have. Carlo 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I like Bob Dylan. Can I be on the list? Elvrum 20:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting it but when i clicked save it told me i couldn't - you already had.

By the way, can we please vote to get rid of that thing? If you delete it it's just going to get reverted back. It's too bad the it got voted off its own article, but this surely isn't the place for it. Elvrum 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Right after I deleted it the first time, I reinstated the original list article -- technically, the merge/redirect counts as a "Keep," so I was able to do that. I don't know why he keeps putting it back. I've run through my 3RR allotment for today, but other folks haven't. If he'd just read his talk page, this would wrap up. Everything's cool now, see my talk page. At least this prompted me to do the link section cleanup that's been ready to go for a couple weeks..... Monicasdude 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed signing date

Months ago in an edit summary i gave my sources for an October signing date (one of them is now an inline ref.) Mdude claims he has contradctory sources but does not give proper citations allowing a check of his claim JDG 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dylan's Signing with Columbia

Unfortunately, it looks the the relatively amicable period here is coming to an end, since User:JDG is back inserting the same unsourced and inaccurate texts that he has been pushing before. The first issue is Dylan's well-documented signing with Columbia. In spite of the fact that every major, first-hand source gives the same account -- that Hammond signed Dylan immediately after his first Columbia recording sessions as a sideman (for Carolyn Hester), on September 29, 1961, a date verified by Columbia's session records and by other sources. Dylan's account is in Chronicles (p278-80); Hammond's in his own autobiography; Robert Shelton, who wrote the Times review, heard the story firsthand from Dylan, and gives the same account in No Direction Home (p.110-113); other reliable Dylan biographies give the same date (e.g., Heylin, Behind The Shades (p60-62). User:JDG's source is non-existent -- he links to a dead webpage of no particular authority. I can't conceive of a reason to reject the account that Dylan and Hammond both give of the signing, especially since it's confirmed by other sources, and the alternate version fails the standards of the recently toughened WP:V, which calls for reliance on reliable published sources whenever possible.
As several editors have commented, the article is painfully short on reliable references, and, if past experience is a guide, the dispute that's being unnecessarily restarted today will involve proposed insertions of material that has no sources whatsoever. Before things get out of hand again, can we get a working consensus that changes which can't be reliably sourced will be removed, no matter who makes them, and that whatever material remains in the article which can't be sourced under the WP:V standards will be removed until satisfactory sources can be provided? Monicasdude 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Prince of Amicable speaks! Of course it was amicable. None of the people who usually keep you honest have been around... Finally, you have given page numbers for your sources. We're getting somewhere. Would you now kindly give us the text that shows the signing happened in September, contrary to the undead link in the article? If you can supply this text I will then exert myself to check the other sources mentioned months ago (this entails a trip to the library). Thank you. JDG 10:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Sounes states on page 130 of "Down the Highway the life of Bob Dylan" that: "The Columbia contract was drawn up on October 25"- any help RAZ fans? Lion King 12:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I check page 277-280 in chronicles and it gives no hard dates - it does discuss his signing to hammond. It might have a date earlier or later which could put those pages into context, im not sure. i doubt this is terribly important :) although getting it right is, of course, what i would recommend. SECProto 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This has happened more than once with Mdude's "strictly sourced" references. I'll be looking into the others early next week. JDG 23:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lyrical Extracts

I think we should have some lyrics in the article - they can illustrate a point. But the lyrics from "a hard rain's a gonna fall" looks basically like a big chunk of text picked straight from the lyrics - they aren't being used to illustrate a point. "the lyrics are contemplative and hard hitting" does not really justify the length of quote that is there. I may have had a different opinion before, i don't remember, but this is my opinion now. SECProto 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Times They Are a-Changin an anthem?

I don't want to go back and forth reverting. So what do folks say? In my opinion, while TTAAC does not mention civil rights specifically, it was taken as referring to that when it came out in 1963 , since Bob wrote lots of Civil Rights stuff, like Hattie Carroll and Emmett Till. Also because of lines referring to things like a "battle outside ragin'" that would shake the windows and rattle the walls of the Congress and Senate (what ELSE could that refer to?)

In my recollection, "Times" was taken to heart by the Civil Rights crowd when it came out, and by the anti-war crowd some years after it came out. That is certainly how I have always taken it.

I’ll admit that there are probably references to civil right in the song (in my opinion, “the slow one now will later be fast”), but a couple amateur interpretations of a song by you or I is not enough to say that it was in fact an anthem for the civil rights and anti-war activists. Did such activists cite it as an anthem? Did they sing it during demonstrations? Even so, Dylan sang "When the Ship Comes In" at the March on Washington, does that make it an anthem? Think critically, and please, cite some sources. Elvrum 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Don't stand in the doorway" -- like George Wallace did to stop desegregation of an Alabama college - I thought everyone understood that oblique reference. People took the song as an anthem - though it was harder to sing together. It was used in documentaries - especially those depicting people marching. Also see: http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=407 --JimWae 20:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Elvrum, but it was most certainly anthemic and a rallying cry song for millions at the time (I remember it well-- how old are you?). Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call - that doesn't sound political to you? Most of all was the line: Come mothers and fathers/Throughout the land/And don't criticize/What you can't understand/Your sons and your daughters/Are beyond your command. The older generations were the ones, by and large, with the repressive racial views, and they were the ones sending us to Vietnam to die for their geopolitical paranoias. That single line could accurately be called the rallying cry of the decade... So, it would be nice if you would do the honors... JDG 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm 20, which is besides the point. :) Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources, particularly the part that reads "even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors." And please note that the use of bold there is not my own. :) Elvrum 23:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that I'm not disputing the "anthemic quality" of the song, although I mistyped that in my last revert. I believe I said on your talk page that such was not my intention. I would just like to see a realible source stating that the song was in fact an anthem of civil rights and anti-war activists. And in response to your inquiry on my talk page, I don't dispute the same statement regarding "Blowing in the Wind" because No Direction Home, which I consider a reliable source, makes a similar statement. Is has nothing to do with my own subjective interpretation of either song. This Land is Your Land might have made a good national anthem for America, but that doesn't make it so. Elvrum 23:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-07,GGLG:en&q=anthem+times+they+are+a+changin --JimWae 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Almost 2 million hits under song title + the word "anthem". Elvrum.... please. JDG 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-07%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=anthem+like+a+rolling+stone&btnG=Search Elvrum 00:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dylan 'reveals origin of anthem'-Alias Flood 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. I'll stop reverting now. Elvrum 00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have reverted and included the source. - Alias Flood 00:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Article needs minor editing.

The "T" on the Band is repeatedly uncapitalized.

Done and done. - Akamad 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

also, the song "make you feel my love" is listed as "to make you feel my love". true, the covers mislabeled the song with the "to...," but this is the Bob Dylan page, and his title is "make you feel my love."

Bob Dylan's work is complete

Whatever you write on this page, it will not touch Bob Dylan. He has done what he had to do. He wrote and sang his songs. Many of these songs will be sung by our grandchildren and their grandchildren. By that time, Bob Dylan will have become an old singer from the past. They will be humming his melodies and maybe remember one or the other line of lyrics. They may ask their grandpa "do you know how the words go on?", and grandpa will certainly ask his grandma "what were the words, you must know, you heard them right out from his mouth, remember the melody Hhm hm hmm hmm hm hm hhhmmm..." And then the grandma of grandpa will tell her GRANDchildren the whole story of a young man, who once left his home town to New York, where he found the life so much easier than... And she will tell not only the story of Bob Dylan, she will sing it in the finest way: Every note and all the words. The kids will not understand the words, since they are too young, they will only internalize the melodies. Later on, they might hum a note or two on the cradle of their baby. Well, Bob Dylan is a historic figure, he will not get the Nobel prize, he does not care, he will have his melodies sung as long as a voice exists. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (09042006) PS: The user Nlu erased the above lines by claiming that they were an "implicit personal attack". However, he did not tell us WHO he thinks was attacked at all. Now, he could hardly do, as an attack does require at least two parts, an attacker and the one(s) being attacked. Neither can be found in my above lines, which have nothing to do with Nlu or any other user of this discussion page. (These lines are part of the discussion, and I don't like people who think they are authorized to delete them just because they are admins.) PPS: I just received the following comment: "Hi. We're not a forum for opinions about the subjects of our articles. Please restrict your use of Talk pages to discussing how to improve our articles. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)" -- I answered: Any encyclopedia article consists of human opinions on the subject. Improving an article simply means to add statements to it which most of the readers share. In a discussion page like this one of the Wikipedia, we may also add opinions which are not so easily understood by the readers at a first glance.

Dude, settle down. Proeliator Sancti 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Proeliator, return to your WOW site. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (30042006)

(Protected Bob Dylan: ROHA [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

This sounds and reads most impressive. Though I do not understand the language of Nlu, I am looking forward to what his strange writings will result in. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14042006)

It means the page was semi-protected. - Akamad 06:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think that semi-protect something is comparable to trying to hold an umbrella under ones feet so that the soles will not become wet from the rain. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14042006)

If you agreed to stop making pointless edits and evading blocks, it wouldn't be necessary. Congrats, your presence here makes this article worse. Rhobite 17:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

When the ship comes in... then Amazon will ship the Encyclopedia out.

Well, when we have The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, then we might be forced to open up a new encyclopedic chapter within this Wikipedia article. Lets look and see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826469337/qid=1144996013/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/002-7133590-0649668?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 So far it says: "The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia is one of the most wide-ranging, informed, entertaining, provocative, and compulsively readable books ever written about popular music. It's the culmination of over thirty years of dedicated research and scholarship by Michael Gray.

Inside these pages, you'll find a world of ideas, facts, and opinions. It's a world in which Baudelaire flows on from the Basement Tapes and A.S. Byatt looks out at the Byrds; in which Far from the Madding Crowd follows Ezekiel and Bob Geldof introduces Jean Genet; and in which Hank and William Carlos Williams stand side by side while J.R.R. Tolkien trails the Titanic. Most of all, of course, it's a world in which everyone and everything interconnects, in endlessly fascinating ways, with one of our greatest living artists: Bob Dylan."

But unfortunately: "Availability: This item has not yet been released. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com."

Yes, "When the ship comes in", then we will learn more about Bob Dylan in an encyclopedic style... Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14042006) PS: Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Price: $25.20

"Baby Blue"

I've just read the Dylan article, it's very good indeed. Just one thing though, since when was the version of "Baby Blue" on BIABH a lengthy "acoustic" song? Jake.

I agree. I believe it is four six line verses and a harmonica solo and come in at under at minutes. hardly lenthy when compared to "Sad eyed lady" or "Desolation Row" or even "mr. Tamborine" man which is on the same album. I'm not sure why you put "accoustic" in quotes however. I would certainly consider the song to be accoustic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.178.148 (talk • contribs) .

That's some fancy grammar you've got going there, 24.22.178.148. Proeliator Sancti 00:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I put "acoustic" because he's backed on the track with electric guitar, electric bass guitar and drums. The latter kit of instruments of course being,"acoustic" (there I've done it again), but I'd hardly call it an acoustic track. Jake.

I can't hear any drums on Baby Blue Jake, but your'e right about the electric guitar and bass though, so I'd hardly call it accoustic. As for it being lengthy, is 4:23 lengthy? "Beatlemad".

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. Our most recent issue brings Bob Dylan into a study of music and poetry. An online version is available for free download at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/resource_library/publications_siyc_spring2006.html

If you think that your audience would find this issue valuable, I wish to invite you to include a link to our site. We would be most grateful.

The lessons in this issue introduce students to the rhythms of poetry. The focus in on two poetic forms that originated as forms of song: the ballad stanza, found throughout British and American literature, and the blues stanzas of Langston Hughes.

It is not, then, an issue devoted to Dylan's work. But as far as I know there are no other lesson plans on the Web that include Dylan. Smithsonian Folkways Recordings built a special audio page to accompany the issue. The tracks include one of Dylan's earliest recordings, "The Ballad of Donald White." This audio page is directly accessible from our site.

Thank you so much for your attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.111.254.11 (talk • contribs) .

I'd say this is a worthy link, especially as Dylan is known to have made substantial contributions to Smithsonian projects. I'll be adding it in a few days without objections here. JDG 10:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nlu thinks that he has something to say...

...while he forgets that he has not a single argument. The contributor Nlu seems to be a notorious and self-called "semi-protector" of this Wikipedia article on Bob Dylan. But Nlu has not so much an idea of Bob Dylan. What he does is on his own sake. Here is a short draft of his thinking: 1) I am an admin. 2) Hence I can revert everthing. 3) What I do not like, that I can revert. 4) I do not like the contribution of X, so I revert it. 5) I do not like my reverts to be reverted, so I protect this article, 6) although I have not any argument at hand, I just _protect_ this article, 7) since later I will win the race.

Now, what I answer to such a (fictional) claim is: You may be an administrator for this Wikipedia article on Bob Dylan. But you will not be able (not even as a simple contributor) to keep up with what you think... Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (27042006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.148.116.90 (talk • contribs) . —The preceding user AmiDaniel claimes that a preceding contribution was unsigned. He seems to have not a clear idea about what it means to sign a post to this Wikipedia discussion page. So I will explain it to him: A post is _signed_, whenever it is followed by a full name and a valid e-mail address. (There is no need to sign in to the Wikipedia.) So read my signature closely, before you claim again something like that: Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (06052006)

Born-again Christian status

I've put Bob into it. Now I KNOW that whether or not he is still a born-again Christian is open to debate. However, I think it has been a sizeable influence on him. He was certainly born-again at some point and so I see no reason to exclude him from a category that will provide greater usefulness for research or information seeking. Levi allemany 21:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How can I change an URL in this article?

Hey friends, I am webmaster of http://HisBobness.info (formerly http://db.dvdylan.com/) and would like to change the link which is posted at the bottom of the page under "Reference works". It is "Yet Another Bob Dylan Database Tour dates and statistics, updated almost daily". Currently it points to db.dvdylan.com and schould be HisBobness.info. How could I change it? Or can someone else change it for me please? thanks!

Fixed. Elvrum 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbia signing date finally nailed

Contract drawn up on Oct. 25, 1961, signed several days later. Source: Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan by Howard Sounes. Pg. 101. Click here: [5] I'll wait a day or two for comments here before removing the disputed tag on this. JDG 06:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, deleting tag. JDG 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Added: Hmm, looks like these Amazon ref links expire after about 24 hours. The one above just shows an error page now. Here's one active at the moment: [6]

Research Paper

Hi, all. I am writing a research paper for school on Ol' Bob. Any tips? I need lots of help. Hit me up on my talk page. What would be worth mentioning? Other sources? Professors you know that may be able to help? Thanks. Breathe in the air, everyone. TommyBoy76 23:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Yeah. You should hereby take two steps to the right, paint your teeth & go to sleep. Bob Dylan.

Sorry, what? TommyBoy76 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

"Paint my teeth"? I don't know what that means. All I'm asking for is some help. Read question above. TommyBoy76 13:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Eh, I guess I get no help. See you all in the next life. --TommyBoy76 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Yeah man,in another lifetime, one of toil and blood. Bob Dylan.

Masterpieces

This article was over at the dead-end article page. It's certainly not up to the standards of the rest of Dylan's collection. Can somebody doll it up a bit? Thatcher131 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dear

The Martin Scorsese film was a killer. So BD is just a poser (of genius - at least in the 60s/70s) and a phoney....It is all emptiness. What a shame.

And it only took you 44 years to work that one out!! Bring back The Cat!. Denise.

I don't want to seem harsh, but BD has been saying that wasn't a "spokesman for a generation" since about 1966. That's nothing new. The socially conscious civil rights anthems he wrote covered about a year-and-a-half of his very long career, and he was about 22 years old.

Dylan has always been more a product of 1920s and 30s than the 1960s. IMO. Carlo 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The poverty of "attitude": Anyone who makes emptiness seem a possibility is bound to be popular with the at least semi-intelligent. Most heroes of the post-war West represent the hope that life is only a matter of wearing the right attitude (and so all questions are answered). The magic is in the misdirection - but the cover is always blown in the end.

- That's as maybe Pliny 23:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish American?

shouldn't bob dylan be included in the list of Jewish American musicians?Drsmoo 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, why should he, because he is Jewish ? Ahh, please. This article is about the PERSON Bob Dylan, not about the circumstances of his BIRTH. If you want to have pointed out that Dylan is a Jew (or "Jewish American musician", as you say), well, then you are free to open up another Wikipedia article on this thread. But, as someone has recently mentioned, this article is going to get all too long at the moment... Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (08062006) PS: By the way, this Jewish American? claim reminds me of a recent discussion about a certain group which was said by some contributors to have been "politically" influenced by Bob Dylan because they used _a word from his lyrics_ to name themselves. You may read the discussion about this thread above.

That's a funny thing to remind you of, seeing as the two issues have nothing in common. One of them is whether something that may or may not describe dyland should be included in the article. The other is whether or not something that relates to dylan and is most certainly true, should be included in the article. SECProto 23:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In case that you, user SECProto, may not have noticed: This article is getting longer and longer with contributions that do not have any informative value. -- Could I give you a glimpse ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (12062006)

If it matters to you so much, why don't you get an account, and help by subdividing the article and putting only summaries of each section on this page? SECProto 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Title

If Bob Dylan's real legal name is Robert Dylan, then shouldn't the opening of the article read something like, "Robert Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman) commonly known as Bob Dylan."?

No. Lion King 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What Lion King said. Sunray 06:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Song Meanings

Some of this is highly subjective and inaccurate. "What Was It You Wanted?" is not a love song. The "Man In The Long Black Coat" might be an orthodox Jewish rabbi? He might be Mickey Mouse too. Back up your sources. Nsign 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jew for Jesus?

Has anyone ever stopped to think that Bob Dylan might be a Jew for Jesus?

Shelter From The Storm

I have reinserted the link to the study, Come In, She Said, I'll Give You Shelter From The Storm. Someone had removed it because they said it had nothing to with Dylan, except the title. That person is wrong, as anyone who reads it can simply see. It is a commentary on a certain aspect of his work, just as other links in that section are. Just because it is religious in nature, and the others are more secular, is no reason to rob people of the abilty to search out other aspects of what motivates Bob Dylan.12:00am CST, June 21, 2006, Anyone7

I would appreciate if you could explain it somewhat then, I have looked at it, and what I see is a bunch of quotes from the bible with absolutely no explanation how they pertain to dylan. SECProto 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am writing this in response to SECProto's request for an explanation of the article "'Come in,' She said, 'I'll Give You Shelter From the Storm,'" which SECProto has been removing the link to because he/she says "I have looked at it, and what I see is a bunch of quotes from the bible with absolutely no explanation how they pertain to dylan."

With all due respect to SECProto, what you say is not there, actually is. And here it is -

The article starts with a quote from the chorus of Bob's song Shelter From the Storm, and with a reference to the album it is from. After quoting some Bible verses which are directly relative to Bob's thought about a feminine person giving him "shelter from the storm," the reader is asked "Who is this Woman who desires to give us 'Shelter from the Storm?'

Following this, there is an explanation of some of the feminine imagery in the Bible with an explanation of how that relates to Bob Dylan and the above question under consideration. That portion reads,

"Whenever reading or thinking of the Holy Spirit [Ruah, in Hebrew], Moses and the other Old Testament writers, Jesus, and His Hebrew/Aramaic speaking apostles and disciples, Bob Dylan, or anyone else with a basic understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, would see a feminine Person."

In the Wiki article on Dylan there are other links which compare him to other poets and writers, and other singer/songwriters which may have influenced him, or to which people see in him a likeness. For some reason all of those commentaries are acceptable, but mine isn't. The only difference between mine and the other unmolested ones is that while the others draw likenesses to what may be generally termed "secular" people, mine shows a commonality Bob has with "Moses and the other Old Testament writers, Jesus, and His Hebrew/Aramaic speaking apostles and disciples."

While others who write commentary on Dylan hold up those who they think people see as heroes, or as extraordinary, I am simply doing the same thing with one who Bob, himself, says is his "hero." That is, "Jesus Christ." I can say this is the truth because Bob said it in the opening of the video Hard To Handle. He has always tried to give credit where credit is do.

The whole on-going debate among some Wiki editors of the Dylan article about whether or not he is a Christian, and just when he became one (if he every really did), is to me lamentable. I don't understand why people just don't take him at his word, and look to his music as the fruits of his beliefs. In the recent 60 Minutes interview Ed Bradley, Bob said that he made a deal with "Destiny" early on in his career. Later Ed asked him more about the "Destiny" matter, and Bob explained it by saying that he had made a deal with "the Captain." When Ed said something to the effect "the captain of this world," Bob said "of this world, and the unseen one" (or to that effect).

People say that he is no longer a Christian because he left the particular fellowship he had been involved with, yet the very last verse of the Sugar Baby, the last song on his last album, is "Look up. Look up. See your Maker, before Gabriel blows his horn." Others say that he did not become a Christian until the mid-to-late 70s. Yet on his 1970 album New Morning, the last song Father of Night ends with the words "Father of Whom we most solemnly praise." Who was that "Whom" he was speaking of, other than Jesus? That was years before he made his public profession.

The story I heard of his "born again" experience as it relates to his "straight testimony" albums, was simply that he met a preacher who convinced him that he shouldn't let people be misled as to what was the motivating factor in what he did, and that he needed to make his somewhat hidden belief in the Gospel known. That is, that Bob shouldn't let the devil (sex, drugs, and rock and roll) get the credit for his inspiration and success, when he knew well better that it was that "Precious Angel" who was a "Special Rider" guiding his reins (as he allowed her).

Many musicians have used their music to preach the Gospel (Good News) in metaphors and similes (parables, if you will). Amy Grant comes to mind, in that she started out as a Gospel singer, and crossed over onto what is called the secular arena in order to share her love of God. I see Bob as having done the opposite - at first going into the secular venue (though at that time religious themes were not as unpopular as they are today, and were a part of the music scene he was a part of), and then going into an openly evangelical forum. All he has done since then is go back to the broader field of story/parable type of presentations. It's all the same - Bob wants to love God, and vice-versa. When asked in that same 60 Minutes interview how he got inspired in the early days to write, he said that he would just play a "Protestant hymn," and things would come to him. He must have had a personal affinity for those "hymns" from a personal experience with the motivating factor behind them - the Captain, and His Bride.

With that said, I'll go back to the article/link under discussion -- In order to more fully explain Bob's use of the feminine imagery of the Bible, I have to explain to the English-speaking reader that imagery as it exists in Hebrew and Aramaic because it is lost in the Greek, Latin, and English translations. Then, after laying down that foundation, I go back to how all of that relates to Bob and the song under consideration by introducing this section -

"BOB DYLAN AND WISDOM, HIS FRIEND

"In the Book of Proverbs the Holy Ghost is characterized as Wisdom, the Divine feminine Intercessor. In his song, Shelter from the Storm, Bob Dylan is simply telling of the Holy Ghost's [Divine Wisdom's] work in his spiritual rebirth — Her, the Daughter of Gods work. 'Come in,' She said [to him, and you and me], 'I’ll give you shelter from the storm.'"

I am sorry that SECProto seemed to have missed that part, as it is probably the most straightforward and simplest explanation of the theme of the article and how it pertains to Bob Dylan. Following that, I bring in some quite specific Bible quotes about Wisdom (feminine in Hebrew) calling unto people in the same manner and for the same purpose which Bob was writing of, in order to better nail the subject in place. Those quotes are about Wisdom calling us in so that we may find shelter and life. Here are those quotes

"...She crieth upon the highest places of the city, Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, She saith to him, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled. Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding." Proverbs 9:3-6.

"She is a Tree of Life to them that lay hold upon Her: and happy is every one that retaineth Her." Proverbs 3:18.

Following that I tie that feminine imagery into some of Bob's songs, as follows,

"Precious Angel, under the Sun, how was I to know You'd be the one. To show me I was blinded; to show me I was gone; how weak was the foundation, I was standing upon. Shine Your light. Shine Your light on me. Shine Your light. You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see...You’re the Queen of my flesh Girl, you’re my Woman, you’re my delight." Precious Angel, by Bob Dylan.

And then another,

"If not for you, Babe, I couldn’t find the door, couldn’t even see the floor. I’d be sad and blue, if not for You..." If Not For You, by Bob Dylan.

And then some titles of more songs which contain more of the same imagery,

"Under Your Spell, Your Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go, Tight Connection to My Heart (Has Anybody Seen My Love), You Angel You, Covenant Woman, etc., by Bob Dylan - singing Her Praises before the nations."

And then I finish up by tying the whole thing back to Shelter From The Storm by quoting the last verse which is one of the deepest lines he has ever written, that is,

“If I could only turn back the clock to when God [Jesus] and Her [the Holy Ghost] were born, “'Come in,' She said 'I'll give you shelter from the storm.' ”

I could add much more commentary on the rest of the song, or even write a book about these subjects underlying all of his songs, and have it published. Maybe then it would rate enough to be let on the Misc. Section as are other commentary/comparison writings. But just because mine is relatively brief is no reason to exclude it from being available to those who ponder the knowledge which motivates Dylan's imagery.

In the 2 or so weeks it was on the article before it was removed (again), we received about 65 visitors from the link. Prior to that, before it was removed at another an earlier time, we were getting about 100 visitor's a month from the link. That is when it had the brief explanation of the article being about the Judeo-Christian feminine imagery in Bob's songs. Evidently some people were interested in the subject. So why not allow Wiki to be just that - anyone.

Another person complained that the article was not fit for an encyclopedia format. If that's true, then neither are a number of the other miscellaneous links, and even some of the paragraphs that are in the article itself, for they are highly opinionated, or speculative.

Also, I don't think the article is getting too long. His life and music require some space.

So, does that answer your question, SECProto? Peace. Anyone7 10:20 CST, June 25, 2006

Yeah, I can see how it pertains to Dylan now. But it is still explained somewhat poorly on the linked page. I'm not going to continue to remove it. However, as you stated, some of the links and even paragraphs in this article are poorly written. This is definately true, the links section as a whole pretty much sucks. Having some bad links doesn't really excuse someone to add other poor links, but rather, to remove the bad ones which are already there. SECProto 18:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Suze Rotolo

She's missing from the article. What gives? David 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, she does have her own article. Where would you fit her in this one? Carlo 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The athenian general

Bob Dylan talks excitedly about the book 'the Athenian general' by Thucydides in his first autobiography, except I don't think this book even exists. What book was bob dylan really talking about that he was so impressed with?

Rainy day women

Bob Dylan's rainy day women song doesn't have an article. There is an article Rainy day women that is heavily related to it. However, it seems to be plagiarized or something. So this needs to be taken care of and maybe this information can be used in creating an article for the song. I just threw this in here because it isn't as easy to find etc.--CountCrazy007 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Reviewing this for Version 0.5, I noticed that there is no formal reference section for this article, only a few inline links to websites. As I understand it, this would cause it to fail even the criteria for WP:GA, never mind WP:FA! The article otherwise seems very good (though long), and I suspect that much of the "further reading" should in fact be "references", so I haven't sent it for featured article review. (BTW, "references" or "notes" are sources used in writing the article, "further reading" are not) Could some of the main contributors to the article please try to fix this problem so FAR isn't needed? To save problems later on, I would strongly suggest use of inline references, with <ref></ref>. I'd like to see Bob in Version 0.5! Also, I archived 40 kB of discussion from Sep 05 to Archive 3. Thanks, Walkerma 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added a link to the original nomination & promotion of the article, so this can now be accessed from the FA template. I've also contacted two of the original authors requesting their sources. Walkerma 06:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Added to the Protest Section

It was already mentioned that Dylan performed at the Million Man March. I added which song he performed, "Chimes of Freedom," and whom he performed with, Joan Baez. My source is the stock video from the biographical documentary No Direction Home.

Recent Portrait

On 23rd September I suggested adding a recent portrait, seeing as Bob Dylan is still alive. I've found one that I think is appropriate, but needs confirmation of copyright etc. Firstly, could one of you more experienced people sort it out? Considering the lack of a modern portrait I have suggested it constitues fair use of a copyrighted image. Secondly, could somebody please upload it, if and as appropirate?

It has been suggested that it should be near the top somewhere due to its significance, although it's obviously up to the main editors of this page. The image is:

File:Bob Dylan Recent Portrait.jpg

Thanks. Levi allemany 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, its a good shot, but dylan doesn't have long or straight hair at this point, so perhaps something from his site would work better. And I definitley think an old photo should remain the main shot of Dylan. His most easily recognizable form should be presented at the get go as wiki is at its finest when it serves as a quick reminder and an extension of referential memory.User:thechosenone021 03:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, and I notice the main photo has been changed. Can I suggest that this picture gives the best impression of Dylan's age at the moment and until we find a more accurate picture in terms of hair (and also the live use of guitar is generally inaccurate at the present time), that this picture should be used in that interim period? I'd hate to see such a nice picture go to waste. Levi allemany 15:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Throw it in for that one at the bottom under recent live performances after reformatting it. The current distant stage shot is basically useless. And yeah, i would get someone else to work out copyrights, I know i don't know how that works.--Thechosenone021 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Links??

• Links removed

What happened to all the links?? Was this done as some sort of consesnsus? JDG 13:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, unilateral as heck. There were a lot of links, it took me simply ages to look at them all. While I did my best, I of course might have made a mistake. I'm a very strict reader of the links guideline, but am always ready to debate, too. Any link in particular that adds a "unique resource" that should go back in? Oh, and it was very kind to be pinged on my talk page about this, I do appreciate the courtesy. - brenneman ^{L} 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This has needed doing for a long, long time. I'm very pleased that it has finally been done. Jkelly 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, you might want to think again JKelly. Dylan is a pretty unique entity in this. It's fair to say no other artist has as large and active an Internet presence. Sure, you'll find far more Britney or 50 Cent "fan sites" out there, but typically all but one or two have no depth and go stale within weeks. Dylan-related sites, in contrast, are around for years, have copius materials and databases, active forums, news of future shows and releases, etc.,. As I mentioned to Brenneman on his Talk page, many of these links have been here since 2002. You have to give some credit there... they are venerable in that way. Well-- I'm too ill right now to get into it more tonight. I think many of them *must* be brought back, but not all. JDG 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone

There are quite a few breathless passages here. I'd try my hand and {{sofixit}} myself, but as there are lots of other editors whom have worked hard on this article. My inclination is somewhat towards the minimalist side, so does anyone else want to have a go first?
brenneman ^{L} 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)