Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is currently categorized in both Jewish and Christian categories. Should the categorization remain or be the same, and, if it is to be changed, how. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stay the same - A review of the rather extensive article talk page archives here indicates that there are reliable sources which indicate that the subject has been affiliated, at various times, with both Judaism and Christianity, and that, since the time of his joining the Vineyard Church some time ago, there have been no reliable sources which clearly indicate that Dylan himself has indicated his current status. As per WP:BLP, I believe we are obligated by policy to not go any further in statements regarding the subject's current religious beliefs than the subject himself has gone. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Neither - In light of subsequent comments, for which I am grateful, I believe it can reasonably be stated that, based on the subject's current rather ambiguous religious status, there is insufficient cause for him to be categorized as being either a religious Jew or Christian. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• both or neither (preference for neither) The only solutions are to include all the categories or neither. Dylan has at different times been part of both Jewish and Christian communities and he obviously and clearly draws on both sets of experiences in his work. Dylan cannot be, and clearly does not want to be, defined to fit into any single category to the exclusion of others.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Neither -- unless there is some sort of unequivocal recent statement from him that shows a current identification of some sort. The text can indicate what his history has been in this regard, but categories imply what the situation is currently and so we need something that tells us what the situation is currently. If there's nothing, then the categories should go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• More tags or just Let it Be - At one time or another Dylan was all of those things; he should not be categorized; or defined; wasn't his first recording Mixed Up Confusion?...Modernist (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Neither makes sense. Lets give it a break...Modernist (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Neither those categories are mostly useless anyway. Remember categories aren't supposed to be about labeling someone, they are for navigation. If there is doubt, just leave it off. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Stay the same - Dylan is an important cultural figure, and I think there is valid evidence for classifying him in both Jewish and Christian categories. I see no reason to remove labels, he deserves both. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Stay the same - Agree with John Carter and Brianyoumans. I believe that sources confirm that Dylan has been affiliated with both Chrsitianity and Judaism in recent years. Mick gold (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Neither - Perhaps these box-like categories are not a useful way to describe the most mercurial of musicians, who has said: " I think one thing today and I think another thing tomorrow. I change during the course of a day. I wake and I'm one person, and when I go to sleep I know for certain I'm somebody else." Mick gold (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Neither Dylan has denied all. Give the guy a break. He self-identifies as nothing. Let him speak for himself. Neither. Or just keep as Jewish.Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Neither I have no question that Dylan identified as a Christian at one time. But I have no idea if he still does so, and neither does anyone else (although I suspect not). It is not AT ALL uncommon for a person's religion to be in a nearly continuous state of flux. So why must there be a label at all? Carlo (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Both. Take a look at Category:Jewish writers; its a subcategory of both Category:Writers by ethnicity and Category:Writers by religion. Since Dylan is unquestionably of Jewish ancestry, he retains his Jewish ethnicity even though he has converted to Christianity (which he has). --→gab 24dot grab← 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Both Of course, because, as 24dot pointed out, Jewish may also mean the ethnicity, and Dylan is an unquestionable a Jew. Whether his religion is Judaism or Christianity is dubious, but as Jew believe Jesus is a false prophet while Dylan do not and as he released some Christian music I believe he deserves the Christian cats. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 21:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Neither If there is enough uncertainty about whether he fits either/or both categories that such a lengthy discussion takes place here, it seems best to leave him uncategorized. Agadant (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Jewish Categories Only; Not Christian Categories. This source is more than enough confirmation that Dylan is a Jew. Sources from the born-again period do not pinpoint any means for conversion. (Baptism would be an example of a means for conversion.) To me this indicates that the use of the term "conversion" by those sources that use this terminology is figurative and not literal. An aliyah at an Orthodox synagogue, especially on Yom Kippur, would not be open to non-Jews, and the Orthodox can reasonably be expected to uphold the most stringent standards regarding which individual they consider properly to be a Jew. I think we should Categorize by current affiliation. Even if some feel past affiliations such as the born-again period were valid, I don't think we should be Categorizing by any such past affiliations as they should not be considered any longer applicable. The above source is from 2007. That is much more recent than any sources that support a Christian affiliation. Bus stop (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Both Per 24dot. In the Orthodox Jewish tradition, even those who have converted are considered Jewish by birth. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. One becomes an apostate and ceases being a Jew, even if born one, by converting to another religion. Where did you get the information that one remains a Jew if one converts to Christianity; this is patently not true. Jewish by birth, but a Jew gives up being a Jew by converting. Judaism is a religion. Can't be both a Chritian and a Jew.01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Jewish - pretty clear that he is 100% jewish of some sort, one way or another. and also, very clear that while he has mentioned christianity in the past, it was not his religious beliefs. he was not an ethnic or religious christian. maybe a social christian, whatever that is. Soosim (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Anyone not familiar with WP:BLPCAT would be well advised to learn about it for this discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, I am not entirely sure exactly how to apply it in this particular case. Dylan more or less publicly identified as a Jew for some time, prior to his brief "Christian" era. On that basis, I believe that the description of Jewish is relevant. Unfortunately, as per the Infobox on the article, one of the music genres he has produced in is "gospel" music, which is more or less clearly Christian. During that period, in which Dylan won a Grammy Award for "Best Male Vocalist." I believe both are sufficient to meet the grounds of "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." In this case, I think description and categorization for both Jewish and Christian meet the above criteria, and, unfortunately, for whatever reason, Dylan himself has avoided saying anything recently which could be said to clearly indicate his present status. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As I say above: categories tell us about how things are now. If we don't have a basis for knowing how things are now, then we should omit categories covered by BLPCAT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I can understand how, on that basis, any categories which could be seen as making statements about his religious beliefs would be discounted. I am myself however unsure how that would apply regarding, for instance, "Gospel music" categories. Would the line there be whether he still performs some of that music? John Carter (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gospel music doesn't tell us about the religion of an individual and so isn't subject to WP:BLPCAT; one can sing gospel music without being a Christian. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think WP:BLPCAT and its requirement for "self-identification" applies to Category:American gospel singers because it is not a religion but rather a style of music. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I will say up front that I think wikipedia is treated too much like a tabloid. There are endless edit wars and discussions on what to include. I have seen one editor accuse another of adamantly putting every BLP he can into jewish categories and argue the same points forever. I see no reason why so many insist on adding categories when so many disagree on them. If readers want tabloid information they should go to a tabloid site. Back to the RfC, could we create categories:former(religon here)?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you. Cannot understand why it is necessary to add so many categories to Dylan' bio when he is largely impossible to categorize. Cannot understand why it is so important to have him in so many Christian categories.Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Former Christians already exists. I guess the question is whether, given the comparative lack of recent evidence that he is in any way really actively connected to Judaism, whether Category:Converts from Judaism might apply as well. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

John, coming closer to a resolution. However, NO evidentiary record of converting FROM Judaism. Ambiguous record at best that he was ever a Christian. Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Canoe. Cannot understand why it is necessary to add so many categories to Dylan's bio when he is largely impossible to categorize. Cannot understand why it is so important to have him in so many Christian categories.Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dylan is still performing material from his “gospel albums”, Slow Train Coming and Saved. His song “Gonna Change My Way Of Thinking” [1] was performed at most of Dylan’s shows in 2011: [2]. I don’t see how Dylan can be categorised as a “former Christian” when he gave an interview to promote his 2009 album, Christmas In The Heart. ("Bob Dylan Discusses Holiday Music, Christmas and Feeding The Hungry With Bill Flanagan", Street News Service, November 23, 2009), which included the following exchange:
B.F.: “You really give a heroic performance of "O Little Town Of Bethlehem". The way you do it reminds me a little of an Irish rebel song. There’s something almost defiant in the way you sing, "The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight." I don’t want to put you on the spot, but you sure deliver that song like a true believer."
B.D.: “Well, I am a true believer.”
That sounds, to me, like an unambiguous answer.
There is also evidence that Dylan is actively participating in the Jewish faith. For example, in Atlanta in 2007, Dylan "appeared at synagogue prayers on the Yom Kippur Day of Atonement and was honored with a call to the reading of the Torah." [3] There is also this rather lurid account of Dylan visiting a synagogue in 2011: [4]. Dylan has famously resisted being defined by categories. In an interview in 1997, when Bill Gates of Newsweek asked Dylan why he would not discuss his “born again” Christianity, Dylan replied: "It's not tangible to me. I don't think I'm tangible to myself. I mean, I think one thing today and I think another thing tomorrow. I change during the course of a day. I wake and I'm one person, and when I go to sleep I know for certain I'm somebody else. I don't know who I am most of the time. It doesn't even matter to me." [5] Mick gold (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

None of that is good enough to satisfy BLPCAT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If "I'm a true believer" that's an unambiguous answer then you don't know the first thing about Bob Dylan.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Self-identification is called for according to WP:BLPCAT. This is a proper edit because we don't have the self-identification necessary for placement into Category:American Christians, Category:Converts to Christianity, and Category:Christians of Jewish descent. Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood this process. Every major biography of Dylan has chapters about Dylan’s “born again” Christianity. They quote sources such as this [6] and this [7]. Is Bus stop telling us that every major Dylan biography has got it wrong? Mick gold (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, I cannot see any reason for anyone saying so. I believe if there is any real concern regarding this matter, WP:BLPN would probably be the best place to go to get neutral input on the subject. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mick gold—a person who explores another religion is not automatically a convert to it. If a Christian, or a person of another religion, or of no religion at all, participates in a Jewish event, such as a Shabbat, Passover, or Succot meal/event, or attends a synagogue service or listens to a religious talk in a Jewish house of worship, and if they remark about it that the experience was for instance "beautiful", "meaningful", or "fulfilling"—do we conclude that they have converted to Judaism? You are providing sources.[8][9] Do those sources show that Dylan converted to Christianity? Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with aboveMwinog2777 (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop and Mwinog2777, if 3 major Dylan biographies all discuss his period of Christianity, I think it is not our position as Wikipedia editors to dispute it. Even if we suspected it wasn't true, it is not in our purview to, literally, rewrite history. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is he a Christian now? Did he convert? Wenner clearly states he did not ever convert. Is he currently both a Christian and a Jew? (Can't be both at the same time; major editing need be done on the category section) Did he leave Christianity, if he was ever in? (If so, need to change categories.) We are not changing history; we are simply looking for accuracy in categorization.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wenner’s review of Slow Train Coming was published on September 20, 1979. Since September 1979, we have had many Dylan biographies including No Direction Home, Robert Shelton, 1986; Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited, Clinton Heylin, 2000 and 2011; Down The Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, Howard Sounes, 2001; and The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, Michael Gray, 2006. All these works have chapters on Dylan’s phase of "born again" Christianity. They also have discussions of Dylan’s faith after 1983. Are you arguing that Wenner’s 1979 review negates all the biographies of Dylan published since then? I am simply uncomfortable with Dylan article (as BLP) being at odds with the major published biographies. If we can resolve this by adopting consensus of "neither", I could live with that. I can’t live with Dylan article contradicting the major biographies. Mick gold (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus coalescing: "neither"Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think "neither" is kind of silly. Dylan is undeniably culturally Jewish, if not a practicing Jew, and he also won a major award for his gospel music. If he was dead and his current state of belief no longer mattered, would we have the same arguments? I think it is important to list him as a Christian musician, and it is undeniably true that he has been a Jewish one. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianyoumans—from where do you derive that "Dylan is undeniably culturally Jewish…"? What leads you to hold the view that Dylan is "culturally Jewish"? No source that I have seen says that Dylan is "culturally Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, he comes from a Jewish family, he has attended many Jewish religious events... maybe "culturally Jewish" is a stretch, but certainly "ethnically Jewish". And that seems to be all that is required for the various Jewish categories that he is listed in. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianyoumans—yes of course Dylan is "ethically Jewish" and so are most of the individuals in Category:American Orthodox rabbis. The only Orthodox rabbis in Category:American Orthodox rabbis who are not ethnically Jewish are those who are converts to Judaism. As there are relatively few Jews who are converts to Judaism, there are relatively few Jews who are not ethnically Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm still hoping you may find the time to answer the question I asked you below. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A singer of Christian music is not the same as a Christian musician. Kenny G, Barbara Streisand, Paul Simon, Leonard Cohen, etc. have sung Christian music without being called Christian musicians. He is undeniably Jewish, NOT "undeniably culturally Jewish". I agree with Bus, what criteria/evidence are you using to make that determination? I started this discussion by raising the question whether he should be categorized in an encyclopedia as Christian. Clearly, many people have variant opinions. I was aware of extensive previous discussions. I am also aware that Wiki attitudes toward categorization have evolved over the past several years, and thought it worthwhile to bring this up again. Dylan is living, not dead. I think we should use rigid criteria to list a living person in a category. Let people read the bio and come to their own conclusions, rather than a few editors pigeonholing.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, to my eyes, the main purpose of categories (or, for that matter, banners) is to alert relevant Wikipedia editors, generally through WikiProjects, that an article relates to their general subject. Another is, of course, general interest. For several articles, particularly the more obscure ones or the ones that get less attention, that is often the only way that those articles get any real improvement. In this case, I seriously doubt whether there are any reference sources or magazines or whatever of a primarily religious basis which have covered Dylan because of his religion, which would be the primary benefit of the religion categories. Also, frankly, very few subjects have as competent and high quality editor as Mick working to them on the extent that he has. Very possibly even without anyone else's input, this might be one of the best articles we have. And, frankly, I rather seriously doubt that there are that many editors actively seeking musical figures by religious affiliation. If he had had anything substantial to say about either Judaism or Christianity based on his apparent conversions, which he hasn't so far as I can tell, then, maybe, convert categories might be justified. This, however, is not one such case. For those reasons, I have to think that maybe, in this particular case if no others, there is much less reason for religious categorization of any kind for this article. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

John Carter—"apparent"[10] is not good enough. We are referring to changing religion. This is not something understood to be embarked upon lightly. If a Christian attended a talk at a synagogue and was very impressed we would not say that they had "converted" to Judaism. You are referring to Dylan's "apparent conversion". Conversion is a deliberate step. It is not consummated merely by being "apparent". Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I take it you haven't heard many of Dylan's records from the 1980s. Dylan did a bit more than go to church and be impressed by the sermon. There are certainly more of his records that are overtly Christian than overtly Jewish. And Still he clearly does not identify as exclusively one or the other.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What does the kind of music he performs have to do with what his religion is? Bus stop (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, we have been over this territory many, many times. I think your argument is that Dylan explored Christianity as a musician, but there is no proof that he became a Christian. You write: “If a Christian, or a person of another religion… participates in a Jewish event, such as a Shabbat, Passover, or Succot meal/event, or attends a synagogue service… and if they remark about it that the experience was for instance ‘beautiful’, ‘meaningful’, or ‘fulfilling’—do we conclude that they have converted to Judaism?” I would answer “no” to that. But Dylan did not emerge from his Bible study at the Vineyard School of Discipleship and say it was ‘beautiful’, ‘meaningful’, or ‘fulfilling’.

He wrote two albums exploring faith in Christ, Slow Train Coming and Saved, and recorded them in a style of gospel music. The producer was Jerry Wexler. Wexler has recalled in an interview that during the recording sessions, Dylan kept proselytizing Wexler, urging him to believe in Jesus. Wexler replied: "Bob, you're dealing with a sixty-two-year old Jewish atheist. Let's just make an album." (Heylin, Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited, 2000, pp. 501–503.)

Dylan then went on the road performing material from these albums and speaking to his audience. In Omaha, Nebraska, (25 January 1980) he said “Years ago they said I was a prophet. I used to say, ‘No I'm not a prophet’ they say ‘Yes you are, you're a prophet.’ I said, ‘No it's not me.’ They used to say ‘You sure are a prophet.’ They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say Jesus Christ is the answer. They say, ‘Bob Dylan's no prophet.’ They just can't handle it.” [11]

In Syracuse, New York, (4 May 1980) Dylan said, “I know that some people might not believe there is a Devil at all. I'm not talking about a Devil with a pitchfork. Are you listening to me? All right, some of you might think of the Devil with a pitchfork and horns and that's not necessarily the Devil at all. I talk about the Devil that at one time was God’s chosen servant. His right hand helper, his right hand man, beautiful angel. We're talking about that Devil. He's a spiritual Devil and he's got to be overcome. He has been overcome by what Jesus did at the Cross. I just want to tell you that so you know. That's as short as I can put it.” [12]

Dylan talked to reporters, including Robert Hilburn of The Los Angeles Times:

R.H. Why didn’t you do any of the old songs on the 1979 tour?

B.D. I truly had a born-again experience. If you want to call it that. It’s an over-used term, but it’s something people can relate to. It happened in 1978. I always knew there was a God or a creator of the universe and a creator of the mountains and the seas and all that kind of thing, but I wasn’t conscious of Jesus and what that had to do with the supreme creator.

R.H. Is there any way you can talk about the changes in your life, how the religious experiences made you feel or act differently?

B.D. It’s in my system. I don’t really have enough time to talk about it. If someone really wants to know I can explain it to them, but there are other people who can do it just as well... When I walk around some of the towns we go to, however, I’m totally convinced people need Jesus. Look at the junkies and the winos and the troubled people. It’s all a sickness which can be healed in an instant. The powers that be won’t let that happen. The powers that be say it has to be healed politically.

(Cott, Dylan on Dylan: The Essential Interviews, 2006, pp. 281-282)

Dylan talked to Karen Hughes of The Dominion, Wellington, New Zealand:

"Christianity", he explained, "is not Christ and Christ is not Christianity. Christianity is making Christ the Lord of your life. You're talking about your life now, you're not talking about just part of it, you're not talking about a certain hour every day. You're talking about making Christ the Lord and the Master of your life, the King of your life. And you're also talking about Christ, the resurrected Christ, you're not talking about some dead man who had a bunch of good ideas and was nailed to a tree. Who died with those ideas. You're talking about a resurrected Christ who is Lord of your life. We're talking about that type of Christianity".

"It's HIM through YOU. 'He's alive', Paul said, 'I've been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. Yet not I but Christ who liveth in me'. See Christ is not some kind of figure down the road. We serve the living God, not dead monuments, dead ideas, dead philosophies. If he had been a dead God, you'd be carrying around a corpse inside you".

Dylan speaks of having constant dialogue with Christ, of surrendering his life to God's will much in the same way as Joan of Arc or St Francis of Assisi would have done. It is, he says, the only thing that matters.

(Cott, Dylan on Dylan: The Essential Interviews, 2006, pp. 275-276)

These interviews appeared in biographies of Dylan. Look at Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Take Two, Clinton Heylin, 2000, Chapter 27, “On The Holy Slow Train” and Chapter 28 “East Coast Bondage”, pp. 490–526. Look at No Direction Home: The Life and Music of Bob Dylan, Robert Shelton, 1986, “Coda: Busy Being Born Again”, pp. 476–498. Look at Down The Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, Howard Sounes, 2001, Chapter 8, “Faith”, pp 306–351. Look at The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, Michael Gray, 2006, “Born Again period, the”, pp, 76–84. These chapters quote from the Hilburn and Hughes interviews referenced above. These chapters describe, in an unambiguous way, what Sounes terms “Bob’s extraordinary full-blown conversion to Christianity” (p. 324).

The basis of a BLP must be Verifiability. I strongly believe the basis of the Bob Dylan article must be the best biographies of Dylan available. I’ve asked you this before, and you didn’t answer. Are you claiming that the above four books on Dylan have all got it wrong? Mick gold (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

New Section on Jewish and Christian categories

(...because I'm tired of how long the other one is.) I think a point which is being missed is that I don't think we need to determine what religion Dylan belongs to currently, because none of the categories require that. Very few of the categories even have any sort of definition of who is supposed to be in them, but those that do are quite inclusive - Category:American Christians says "This is a list of members of Christian churches, either past or present, in the United States by denomination." (He should probably actually be in Category:American Protestants or some other subcategory, btw.) I would interpret "either past or present" to mean "past or present members"; you could interpret it differently, but the language certainly does not exclude explicitly the inclusion of a former church member. Jewish categories are similarly lacking in definition, and I see no reason why someone ethnically Jewish should not be included there.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You did see the link to WP:BLPCAT before, right? That is really the basis for the discussion about the Jewish and Christian categories. I do note that guideline does not specifically state clearly that the categories need be relevant to the subject's current status, however. It does say material about a BLP's religious beliefs or sexual orientation (the latter being irrelevant here) should be in some way directly relevant to the subject. It does not however, so far as I can see, directly refer to the subject's current positions. It does seem to me possible that, based on the existing phrasing, one could apply those categories anyway, as they meet the explicit criteria there. There is nothing I see there which explicitly states that the subject's current status is the only one which can be used as the basis for categorization. Having said that, however, an argument could be made that neither his Jewishness nor his Christianity is particularly relevant to their public life, and, on that basis, that they might both be possibly removed. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently 7 editors favor "neither", 4 editors favor both Jewish and Christian. Mick gold (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that Dylan caused a lot of controversy with his Christian phase and won an award for his gospel music, I think it would be hard to argue that Christianity is not a relevant part of his story. The same argument, to a lesser extent, can be made for his Jewish heritage - it seems like there is no lack of public interest in that.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianyoumans, the controversy surrounding Dylan's "born again" declarations, the Grammy for "Gotta Serve Somebody", and Dylan's Bar Mitzvah and his ongoing engagement with his Jewish roots & faith are all described in the article. The issue is whether we have to hang on to these categories. Mick gold (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is neither. He is in 4 Christian categories. He should be taken out of all of them per consensus. What is the point of consensus if it isn't followed? A decision has been made and needs to be finalized. "NEITHER" is a winning proposal. Consensus in its favor was has been established within a reasonable period of time. Brianyoumans, do you wish to revive the entire discussion? Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure that a good decision is made here. It probably doesn't matter a lot, except that I think removing these categories will mean that people will come along and add them back in piecemeal every few weeks - because they will say, "Why isn't Dylan in Category:Jewish poets? He's Jewish, and he's a poet!" And I think Dylan is a complex and changeable person who has fit into many different categories in his life, and someone interested in, say, his folk coffeehouse period would expect to find him in Category:Greenwich Village... and someone interested in his gospel music would expect to find him in Category:Christian musicians. He doesn't live in the Village anymore, but that doesn't mean we need to remove that category. (I'm just making up an example, I have no idea if there is such a category.) And, I also see a few people who have opened up this discussion due, as far as I can see, to the axes they wish to grind - Mwinog and Busstop, you seem to be happy as long as Dylan isn't identified as Christian - and I think there is more reason to list Dylan in the Christian categories than the Jewish ones - his Christian period was controversial, well-documented, and... well, for goodness sakes, he won a Grammy! How can you have someone win a Grammy for gospel music and NOT list them under Category:Gospel musicians? That's just silly.Brianyoumans (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Category Gospel musician is very good; does not mean someone is or has been Christian. I like that. Many Jewish singers and song writers have done Christian songs without being Christian.Mwinog2777 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Add me to the "neithers." Since the subject has no unequivocal statement to offer and might personally be offended by our presumptuousness in applying a category to his current or past beliefs, I think BLP dictates that we err on the side of caution. That includes not using "former" since at the moment we have no idea where he's at. Allreet (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are reasonable. It is to my eyes extremely unfortunate that we do not have separate categories for "ethnic Jews" and "religious Jews", which seems to be at least part of the problem with the Judaism categories here, and I cannot honestly see why that problem should still exist at this late date. However, as Dylan has, in recent years, not specifically stated or done anything which can unequivocally be used to demonstrate his current status, we can no more categorize him as "former" Jew or Christian, as neither statement can be clearly verified in sources. The same would apply to the categories about current status as well. If we have to potentially resolve this matter without direct access to clear and current information, it seems to me that erring on the side of caution is what is called for in BLPs, and that would probably indicate removal of all religion-based categories. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not fundamentally a matter of life and death. If everyone else wants to move on... well, so be it. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed it really shouldn't be a matter of life and death, but WP:BLP probably comes as close as we get to that level around here. I can and do agree that there is a good chance someone might try to restore the categories later. But Mick watches these pages fairly closely, and I think he can be trusted to remove them if that does happen. Also, I suppose hidden text could be added to the article indicating any religious categories not currently included have been discussed and found inappropriate. I would have myself liked to have moved on after the last brouhaha over this, but as you said, some stuff seems to repeat. A FAQ page link at the top of this page might be a reasonable addition, though. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To pick up on what John Carter wrote – "It is to my eyes extremely unfortunate that we do not have separate categories for 'ethnic Jews' and 'religious Jews'" – do we cease to categorise Dylan as an American Jew? We can’t deny he was raised in a Jewish family and had his Bar Mitzvah in Hibbbing, even if we don’t know his current religious status. Mick gold (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that Mick is not yet happy with this solution, so let me try one more time to lay out why I think leaving both sets of categories in place makes sense.

• 1. First, Dylan is unquestionable a public figure, and "BLPs should simply document what these sources say". Our sources say that Dylan publicly identified as Christian for a time, and also that he was bar mitzvahed (which I would argue is an identification as a Jew).
• 2. I can find no description anywhere that says that "Category:American Christian" or any other such category is limited to persons currently identifying as Christian - I see no reason why they should not be used for former - or possibly former - Christians. Similarly, I see no such descriptions for Jewish categories, and in fact I have found that they are often used to list people of Jewish ethnicity, even if they have converted to another religion.
• 3. I think what categories Dylan is in is far less important than what the article says, and the article says what is documented about his beliefs. If anyone is upset that he is in a particular category, they should read the article.
• 4. I think that is quite arguable that Dylan's Christian period was notable, indeed controversial, and is well documented.
• 5. I think his Jewish family and upbringing and continued interest in Judaism (as shown by occasional visits to synagogues, etc.) are sufficiently important to his story that not listing him in Jewish categories would be a disservice.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I disagree with most of the points above. I agree the BLP rules do not specifically at this time state clearly that categories must relate to current status. The question would seem to me to be possible overcategorization and apparent conflict in categorization. Much the same might apply if we categorized someone as both "Living people" and "2012 deaths", for instance. To most people, not unreasonably I think, those are apparently mutually exclusive categories. The evidence is to my eyes insufficient for us to be able to add "former" to either description. I am myself not completely convinced that his Judaism has necessarily played a significant role in his prominence, but I admit I am not a Dylan fan and I have only read what I saw here when I first got involved in this matter years ago. I don't doubt that his controversial Christian conversion, however short it might have been, did play a role in his becoming prominent again after some years. Maybe it might be better to get this matter addressed at WP:BLP, but, although I respect and acknowledge the rationality of much of the comments above, I do think the apparent contradiction in what might seem to be mutually exclusive categories, if they are kept, will cause the problems to continue. That being the case, it seems to me personally that not potentially "overemphasising" either side, by not including either, would possibly/probably be the better alternative. I really would like to see the BLP rules address this matter more directly, because I doubt this is the only page that has these problems, but, right now, based on the existing rules, I have to respectfully (and it is respectfully) disagree with the above. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter for judicious summary. I agree the problem may lie "in possible overcategorization and apparent conflict in categorization". Your comment: "it seems to me personally that not potentially 'overemphasising' either side, by not including either, would possibly/probably be the better alternative." provides a rational basis for going forward, and am happy to delete categories as discussed. Mick gold (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So be it, let's move on!Brianyoumans (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you all

To whomever posted the photo in the infobox, and the other editors who haven't tried to remove it, a big THANK YOU!! Editors who know me know that photographs are sort of my "thing" as a WikiFaerie, so I couldn't resist a comment here. A recent, outstanding picture for an outstanding performer. xoxox --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Watch out for recentism

The parts of his biography dealing with more recent events are fast falling victim to recentism and proseline. The 2010s are only two years old, yet its section here is already comparable in size to that of the entire 1970s. Several minor releases and trivial events (at least in the context of his entire life) are dealt with in excruciating detail. For example:

On December 10, 2011, to mark International Human Rights Day, Amnesty International announced they would release a 4-CD set, Chimes of Freedom: Songs of Bob Dylan Honoring 50 Years of Amnesty International, to mark the 50th anniversary of the international human rights organization in January 2012. The album contains 76 newly recorded cover versions of songs by Dylan, contributed by more than 80 artists. Included on the album are "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right" performed by both Kesha and the Kronos Quartet, Pete Townshend performing "Corrina Corrina", Sinéad O'Connor performing "Property of Jesus", and Lucinda Williams performing "Tryin' to Get to Heaven". The 4-CD set of Chimes of Freedom entered the Nielsen SoundScan chart at No. 11, and at No. 39, as it was also released in a 2-CD version by Starbucks.

Somebody needs to go through 2000s and 2010s sections, and summarise them more effectively.—indopug (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted that whole paragraph. My reasoning was that a cover album of Dylan songs is not notable enough for the article. There are probably 100s of Dylan cover albums, and none of those should (and rightfully don't) feature so prominently in the article. - Akamad (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Bob Dylan on bass

Editors keep trying to add bass guitar to Bob Dylan's instruments in the info box. This is probably on account of some well-known B&W photos of Dylan holding a Fender Jazz bass guitar, probably taken during the Highway 61 Revisited sessions, June to August 1965. As this article in the Los Angeles Times explains, these photos were used by Fender in advertisements after CBS acquired the Fender company in January 1965. See: [13]

In his definitive history of Fender instruments, Fender: The Sound Heard 'Round the World [14], Richard Smith writes: "One almost surreal endorsement for the Jazz Bass came from Bob Dylan. He was to jazz what Lionel Hampton was to protest music." Mick gold (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Almost every week an editor tries to add bass to Dylan's instruments. In a recording and performing career spanning 52 years, I'm not aware of Dylan being credited with playing bass on any of his 35 studio albums, or playing bass in concert. If there is evidence, please supply cite. Mick gold (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please indicate in Bob Dylan's list of awards that, in May of 2013, the government of France named him a Chevalier de la Legion d'honneur. (This piece of information can easily be found on the Internet!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.146.251 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Occupations.

I note that "record producer" is included. As far as I am aware he has only produced some of his own work which really wouldn't entitle him to this tag. In my opinion calling this an occupation is on a par with calling him a "model" - if you remember the oft added "bass player" where he merely modeled a bass guitar! What do others think? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter?

Isn't singer-songwriter the conventional description of Bob Dylan? This places him in a genre which includes Woody Guthrie, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen, Nick Drake and many more. They are musicians who are famous for singing their own compositions. I would have thought this was conventional, rather than a "technical term". Mick gold (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Plant's Strider (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't think we need to express a view here. Singer-songwriter has a picture of Dylan in pride of place. Says it all really. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine! I noticed it had been changed & thought I would check. Mick gold (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone really needs to expand on this..from a musician`s point of view he was the 1st popular "singer-songwriter" since Hoagy Carmichael as in a songwriter who also made a name for himself as a performer..now everyone is doing it but he was pretty much the first..before him songwriters for the most part worked in cubicles or offices then tried to sell their songs to publishers who had the sheet music printed and tried to sell it to musicians..it was two separate professions..there are of course exceptions..most musicians try their hand at writing a song now and then but generally up until this point professional musicians performed other peoples music...I`m not aware of Frank Sinatra ever writing a song in his life..Elvis may have tried but I don`t think he was very successful at it...the Beatles did it but no one ever really took them seriously as songwriters until they met Dylan.

Also I don`t understand the Joni Mitchell reference at the end of the article..I saw her open up for him several years ago..if she was so opposed to him what was she doing on the same show..wasn`t she in the Rolling Thunder Review for awhile..no...I`m not confusing her with Joan Baez.--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dylan has said many times that the biggest influences on him as he began his career were Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams and Robert Johnson. These were recording artists who wrote their own songs. As a youth, Dylan also noted the compositions of Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry. They were in the first wave of rock'n'roll music and wrote their own songs with great success. Lonepilgrim007 writes above that "the Beatles did it [i.e. wrote their own songs] but no one ever really took them seriously as songwriters until they met Dylan". This is contrary to WP:NPOV. Also, it is not true. William Mann, the music critic of The Times, wrote in December 1963: "For several decades, in fact since the decline of the music-hall, England has taken her popular songs from the United States, either directly or by mimicry. But the songs of Lennon and McCartney are distinctly indigenous in character, the most imaginative and inventive examples of a style that has been developing on Merseyside during the past few years. And there is a nice, rather flattering irony in the news that the Beatles have now become prime favourites in America, too." Joni Mitchell participated briefly in the Rolling Thunder Review, but that was 37 year ago. She seems to have a more negative view of Dylan now than she had in 1976. Mick gold (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Joni Mitchell said in an interview recently that the remarks she had made about Dylan were taken out of context..their approach to writing songs was different that`s all...I saw them play a show together relatively recently..I don`t remember the year but it was long after the Rolling Thunder Review..sometime around 2000 I think..as far as I know they are friends and someone twisted her words. As far as my belief that he started the modern singer songwriter movement I stand by it..yes other musicians had written songs before him...starting around the beginning of his fame everyone with a guitar is a songwriter which is the ironic aspect to his music..you won`t find a bigger Dylan fan on the planet than me however the pandoras box of mediocrity in music that has come out since he started his career has given birth to the enormous volume of crap music that exist today and yes I believe he started it all...as a musician myself...not a songwriter...I believe the general level of musicianship in the profession was much higher prior to the 1960`s in part to the belief that self expression is more relevant than talent and technique which has only gotten worse with technology..now not only every wannabe songwriter who can`t tune a guitar but anyone with a computer thinks they are musicians..they are not..unfortunately Bob Dylan started all that..again let me reiterate I am a huge fan of his..not all the music that has come along since him that he influenced. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In the most recent interview, Mitchell didn't take back her words, she just claimed they were out of context. (How?) And she said, “I like a lot of Bob’s songs, though musically he’s not very gifted. He’s borrowed his voice from old hillbillies. He’s got a lot of borrowed things. He’s not a great guitar player. He’s invented a character to deliver his songs. Sometimes I wish that I could have that character — because you can do things with that character. It’s a mask of sorts.” So, she hasn't exactly rejoined his fan club. Whatever her motivations, she has credentials and is worth quoting if we are looking for criticism of Dylan. Oh, here is where I found her comments.Brianyoumans (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Marvin Karlins and Bob Dylan

Mike Gold notes that Marvin Karlins first introduced Bob Dylan to folk music while Dylan was attending the University of Minnesota. This is accurate. I was teaching a free class in folk music in 1959 when Bob Dylan (then Zimmerman) walked in and asked me about the kind of music I was playing. I told him it was folk music and he said he played guitar and would like to learn more about folk singing. I suggested he attend my classes, which he did. When I ended the classes (I have a picture showing myself instructing Dylan and some other University of Minnesota students)he asked if there was anywhere he could go to continue learning more about folksinging. I directed him to the "Ten O'Clock Scholar", a coffee house a block from campus. It is there that I believe Odetta "discovered" him. 173.78.53.77 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. Although this may well be a factual account, reliable secondary sources are needed to verify this information before it can be used into the article, as Wikipedia policy strictly forbids original research. If you can provide such sources, please do so. The article could then be amended to include this information.--JayJasper (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Marvin Karlins, i presume: If you are willing and able to scan and donate the photo for use here, that will be invaluable. I don't know that work myself but I expect that another editor will be happy to complete the image file page in consultation with you. --P64 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

Current status I have added categories to this article which reflect public, significant, and sourced portions of Dylan's life in accordance with WP:BLPCAT. Note that we don't categorize based on present status (if so, George Washington wouldn't be in Category:Presidents of the United States). So it's irrelevant what his status is now: we have sources that clearly identify Dylan as a convert to Christianity and it informed his music publicly for several years. Any biography of Dylan mentions his "Christian period". The fact that he's an obscurantist or whether or not he's devotional in 2013 is irrelevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There has been an RfC on this last year when it was deemed that these categories should not be there. Obviously consensus can change and feel free to re-open the discussion again, but I have reverted for the time being until a new consensus can be proven. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus A local consensus cannot override the community at large. There was a severe misunderstanding of categorization as somehow being current, which it's not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Rather than get into a revert war with you I shall leave for 24 hours, by which time I am expecting others to join in the discussion - if others agree with you then that is fine! You will note that I did not participate in the previous discussion (never made my mind up either way!). I think your reading of Local Consensus misses the point, and your reversion in the face of the RfC does not meet the spirit of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I believe I argued rather strenuously for categorization like this, I think ignoring the local consensus on this is a mistake. Dylan is an iconic figure, and his notability has relatively little to do with his religion; attempts to "claim" him as Christian or Jewish arouse strong emotions. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Claiming I have no horse in this race: I don't care if he is one or the other or both or neither. The fact is that we have verifiable sources of him being Christian and Jewish. And it's not a trivial or ancillary part of his public life. Why is he categorized as a blues musician when he really only has one blues album but has multiple albums of explicitly Christian music and isn't categorized as a performer of Christian music? It's mind-boggling. His ethnic Jewish heritage isn't in dispute nor is his present devotional status as a Christian. What is irrefutable is there are a lot of verifiable sources that say that he's a Jew and a lot that say that he's a Christian. For us to decide what he really is or what it means for Dylan to be or have been a Jew or a Christian is original research. Lots of sources say "Bob Dylan is a Jew" and lots of sources say "Bob Dylan is a Christian" so he should be categorized as such. Not doing it is POV. It's not up to us to interpret these sources or choose what they mean in the context of this individual's life. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to revert you again, there are presently (which may change) a consensus through RfC and two editors currently opposing your additions. No editor can claim ownership or rights over any article so you are wrong to insist on adding something which has already been opposed. If nothing else the RfC should confirm for you that your simple approach to categorization is not always applicable. If you still feel still strongly about this you should raise the matter and try and overturn the RfC, rather than taking the first steps towards an edit war. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Category removal And you took the RfC far enough to remove categories that weren't even mentioned in it. Why is that? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Response You've chosen to not respond (which is entirely up to you, of course) but I have reinserted the categories because they all have ample citations and are keeping in the letter and spirit of guidelines at BLPCAT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add : Enigmatic / Mystique

Please add the words "enigmatic" and/or "mystique" regarding Dylan's image and cultural influence. Whether authentic or part of a stage persona, those descriptors are significant enough to warrant special note. Please have this added by January 10th 2014. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.18.239 (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the Bob Dylan on top of our TV explode if we don't add the words to the article? Those are good descriptors, but I think the article is pretty good as it is. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dylan just loves when people describe him with those words, doesn't he? ;) The Wookieepedian (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Tone

I inserted a Tone template, as I just edited the "Legacy" (now "Influence") section and it read like a fan club article. I will continue to revise the article so that the template can eventually be removed.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Soulparadox has advocated re-titling the Legacy section as Influence. I've looked at several WP:FA articles on significant musical figures, Aaliyah, David Bowie, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, U2. Each article features a Legacy section. At the last FA review this article went through in 2008, a Legacy section was specifically requested by other editors reviewing this article. Can we reach consensus before re-titling this section?

Soulparadox had made a number of constructive edits to diminish the "fan" tone of the article. I'd be happy to collaborate in this process. I've tried to re-write the sentence preceding the Hoberman quote in the Legacy/Influence section. My motive was stylistic. Hoberman's quote suggests a different perspective on Dylan's legacy from that obtaining in the 1960s, and I thought quote benefitted from being "written into". Mick gold (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure if these are two separate comments, or are by the same copyeditor, but I was unaware of the discussion and will revert the title until we know anything further.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Both the above comments ("Soulparadox has advocated…" and "Soulparadox had made…") were written by me. In my opinion, an example of Influence would be "Dylan's sneering vocal tone on 'Like a Rolling Stone' was quickly emulated by Sonny Bono on his record 'I Got You Babe'". Legacy, I think, conveys the totality of an artist's contribution. When Time magazine described Dylan as "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation", when Barack Obama said, "There is not a bigger giant in the history of American music", they are not describing Dylan's influence on other musicians. They are describing the totality of his artistic achievements. I think this totality is conveyed better by the term Legacy. Mick gold (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Legacy" seems to be the usual term, and a better description. To be brutally honest, Dylan is in the twilight of his career; while he may yet do some wonderful things, I have a hard time believing that he will ever have the kind of cultural impact and stature that he had in the 60s. He could surprise me, but... I'd be surprised. And his body of work from that period has certainly left a legacy. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that "Legacy" seems to be the usual term. I would support keeping this heading, rather than "Influence". Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dylan's influence is now second, third and even fourth generation, but his legacy is everywhere - and not just in music. Of the two words, "legacy" is better - but if anybody has any other suggestions now is the time to suggest. BTW Soulparadox has made some good changes to the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dylan is one of the few people who can be truly called a living legend. The Wookieepedian (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Legacy section

Since Dylan is alive, isn´t it more appropriate to talk about "influence"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a Wikipedia convention. If you look at other Featured articles which are biographies of living musicians - David Bowie, Paul McCartney, U2, Aaliyah - you will find sections on "Legacy". Mick gold (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "convention" is a sufficient reason to continue a practice that is not accurate; furthermore, "Influence" is used in other pages, so it would not look like an aberrational edit. It is possibly an effort by copyeditors to plan for the forthcoming deaths of older artists such as Dylan. If there is a salient reason that I am not aware of, please revert the change to "Influence" that I will make now. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, for the record, Aaliyah is dead. So she can't be used as an example of a living artist with a Legacy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.129.186 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

the last paragraph of the article seems superficially written..who owned the document..who sold it to whom..did bob still own it or was it already in the hands of a collector? what did they do with the money? give it to charity?

Suze Rotolo

How is there not more about Dylan's relationship to Suze Rotolo? She was a major influence of his, just look at her Wikipedia page. 87.198.161.74 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Her book, A Freewheelin' Time, provides a valuable first-hand glimpse of Dylan and Greenwich Village in the early '60s. Sca (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. The passing mention later in the article seems to be a little slim for someone who was with him during the early part of his career. Although, the argument could be made about where one would stop with the mention of folks associated with Dylan as all would have had some influence regardless of how limited it might be. I would posit a girlfriend would have been in a position to influence in a significant way potentially. Look at the amount of space given to Joan Baez. One would think she would have had influence that was noteworthy past the extent mentioned. Bottom line, if Bob never spoke of these influences there would be no way to cite sources for the influence, regardless of the individual's relation to Dylan.THX1136 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Union Sundown

In this edit, a sentence about Dylan's previous criticism of foreign manufacturing in the song "Union Sundown" was removed. Why's that? The Infidels page even describes the song's relation to the topic in detail. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Infidels page does discuss the content of "Union Sundown", but it conatins no citations, it's written like a personal essay and is the writer's interpretation of this song. I've put a version of your sentence back into the article, citing it to Heylin 2010, where the writer discusses how Dylan views global capitalism and the decline of American manufacturing, going back to his 1964 song "North Country Blues". fwiw Heylin's opinion of "Union Sundown" is that the song "struggles to turn the homilies he has accrued about world economics into a coherent (or even cogent) lyric." So maybe we shouldn't take "Union Sundown" and Dylan's economic views too seriously. I have mixed feelings about the value of adding to an already-long biographical entry on Dylan, and other editors may wish to revise or remove this point. Mick gold (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice solution. Personally, I agree that singers who only occasionally pick up specific political topics shouldn't be pinned to them, but since someone had decided to mention it, I thought it'd be valuable to give some context. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we need this biography?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I reverted GoodFaith edit by AuthorAuthor who added this:

In May 2014, Dylan: The Biography by Dennis McDougal was released by John Wiley & Sons. Publishers Weekly wrote in its review that "McDougal presents his caustic indictment with energy and panache."Publishers Weekly, "Dylan: The Biography," May 2014

In past four years, at least 4 other major Dylan biographies have appeared. In 2010, American historian Sean Wilentz published Bob Dylan in America. Scottish journalist and biographer Ian Bell published a two volume account of Dylan, Once Upon A Time and Time Out Of Mind in 2012 and 2013. In 2011, British Dylan scholar Clinton Heylin published a greatly expanded and updated version of the biography he first published in 1991, Behind The Shades, The 20th Anniversary Edition. In 2012, American journalist and author David Dalton published Who Is That Man?: In Search of the Real Bob Dylan. None of these books are mentioned in the article.

Since this article is very long, and Dylan has been the subject of a very large number of biographies, I raise the question do we need to add McDougal's book to this article? Please comment if you disagree. Mick gold (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should add a section that briefly describes the various biographies? Or maybe just lists them? Brianyoumans (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure a book about about Bob defines Bob - but it might define the author of such a book. I doubt there's much place in the article for people who have written about him which isn't covered in the references. Perhaps a category, books about Bob instead? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• We could include a "Further reading" section, as some other articles do, listing the biographies and various books about Bob. Although it would be a rather lengthy list indeed.--JayJasper (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Or, Bob Dylan bibliography could be created as separate page (like the discography) which could include a section of books by Bob (Tarantula, Chronicles, books of lyrics) and another section for books about Bob. Given the large volume of books published in the latter category, this might be the better option.--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of such a bibliography article as that suggested above.--JayJasper (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography of Antarctica and similar exist and many more could. If it meets notability & I imagine it does a Bibliography of Bob Dylan with maybe stubby subarticles for each might be the best way to start. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, I've gone and created Bob Dylan bibliography. Mick gold (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reluctant figurehead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

|

In this edit [15], Bus stop queries why Dylan is described as a "reluctant figurehead of social unrest" in lead. I think this is the best description of Dylan's role in the 1960s because, in his autobiography Chronicles, Volume One, Dylan devotes thirty pages—most of Chapter 3, New Morning, pp. 107 to141—to describing how much he hated being called "the spokesman of his generation" and "the conscience of young America". Here are two extracts:

"As far as I knew, I didn't belong to anyone then or now… but the big bugs in the press kept promoting me as the mouthpiece, spokesman, or even conscience of a generation. That was funny. All I'd ever done was sing songs that were dead straight and expressed powerful new realities. I had very little in common with and I knew even less about a generation that I was supposed to be the voice of." (Chronicles, p.115)

"The press never let up… Usually the questions would start out with something like, "Can we talk further upon the things that are happening?" "Sure, like what?" Reporters would shoot questions at me and I would tell them repeatedly that I was not a spokesman for anything or anybody and that I was only a musician… Later an article would hit the streets with the headline "Spokesman Denies That He's A Spokesman." I felt like a piece of meat that someone had thrown to the dogs." (Chronicles, p.119)

This was Dylan's version in Chronicles, published 2004, but I also think it's clear that in press conferences in the 1960s (for example in the film Dont Look Back) that Dylan keeps refuting or evading any suggestion from reporters that he has the answers to the big social and political questions of the 1960s. This is why I think "both a chronicler and reluctant figurehead of social unrest" is the best description of Dylan's role in the 1960s. Please comment if you disagree. Mick gold (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not my entire argument but let me point out from the start that nowhere in the sources you provided above do we find the word "reluctant". I am keenly cognizant of the banter you are referring to between Dylan and the press. I mostly know of this from the numerous interviews available online by typing search terms into YouTube such as "dylan" "reporters" "news". You provide good, well-sourced material, for a few sentences about this in the body of the article. My problem is with the phrase "reluctant figurehead". It is a subtle problem and at this point I don't want to try to expound voluminously on it. But it is actually not just me you are reverting. Les woodland made this edit which also removed the word "reluctant". In each case you keep reinserting the word "reluctant". Dylan "rejected" certain characterizations that reporters tried to shoulder him with. But I'm not sure we should characterize him in our article as a "reluctant figurehead". I find that terminology problematic. By giving examples of Dylan's interactions with the press, as you do in your sources above, we provide examples of the banter that we are both talking about. I find this more expanded approach more readable. "Reluctant figurehead" may be compact but it merely hints at Dylan's deflection of certain claims made by the press about him. The lead may simply be calling for something that can't be summed up using a minimum of words, and perhaps can't be summarized at all. Perhaps we should address Dylan's relation to the press at this early stage of his career by providing some examples of such interactions. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop, you seem to be saying, "Yes, you have good support for the idea of Dylan as a "reluctant figurehead", but because you can't cite a source that uses that exact phrase, maybe we shouldn't use it." I think we don't need to stick to the exact language in this case - if we can find reasonable support for our words, let's use them. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Think of what "reluctant figurehead" means. A reluctant figurehead is a figurehead, only reluctantly so. Has Dylan accepted that he is a figurehead? No, he has not, therefore he is not a "reluctant figurehead". Our sentence reads: "Much of his most celebrated work dates from the 1960s, when he was both a chronicler and reluctant figurehead of social unrest". But he never agreed with the press that he was a "figurehead". Or do we have a source in which Dylan says anything like "OK, I'm tired of arguing with you, maybe you're right, you make a few valid points, maybe I am a "figurehead"? I don't think so. He is not a "reluctant figurehead" because at no point does he accept "figurehead-status". On the contrary he toys with the press: they repeatedly try to pigeonhole him as somehow pivotal to social change (civil rights, anti-war), and he refuses to accept that mantle. The banter between him and the press shows him repeatedly refusing to be pigeonholed in any such way. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop, it is surely undeniable the press repeatedly thrust upon Dylan the role of figurehead of social unrest in the 1960s. You agree that that Dylan was unhappy with this role, and found the idea that he was the spokesman or voice of his generation to be meaningless. Surely the lead has to sum up, in a sentence or two, Dylan's role as a figurehead of protest in the 60s, and "reluctant figurehead" makes the important point that Dylan never accepted the role the media thrust upon him. Mick gold (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "reluctant figurehead" conveys that Dylan did accept that he was a "figurehead". It says that he accepted it reluctantly. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would "involuntary", "unintentional" or "unwitting" work better than "reluctant"?--JayJasper (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would just lop the sentence in half: "Much of his most celebrated work dates from the 1960s, when he was both a chronicler and reluctant figurehead of social unrest" becomes "Much of his most celebrated work dates from the 1960s". Within the body of the article a few sentences can document his testy relationship with the press. I am not sure that we have to document the second half of that sentence ("when he was both a chronicler and reluctant figurehead of social unrest") in the lead of this article. Some members of the press had a one-track mind about Dylan's role in important social changes that were taking place at that time, and Dylan participated in sometimes humorous dialogue when the press engaged with him in banter related to this. At this point in our article's development there is no mention of his perceived roles in the social change taking place in the decade of the 1960s, or whether or not he should be characterized as a leader in that change, therefore I think there is little pressure to include related information in our lead. Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm on board with that.--JayJasper (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this, in the lead: "Much of his most celebrated work dates from the 1960s. Although the press characterized Dylan as being in a position of central importance to social changes taking place at that time, Dylan often refuted this, especially in interviews." I think that captures what was there before. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bus stop. I think what is currently there is more concise: Much of his most celebrated work dates from the 1960s, when he was both a chronicler and reluctant figurehead of social unrest. Followed by sentence about anthems for civil rights and anti-war movements. But it would be good to hear from other editors. Bus stop astutely points out that body of BD article does not refer to Dylan being acclaimed as a spokesman in the 1960s. This is surely a serious omission and I've tried to rectify it by adding some text. Coverage of Dylan as the voice of his generation has been a feature of media accounts of Dylan from the 1960s to the present day. Half of the Ed Bradley interview on CBS in 2004, the last TV interview Dylan gave, was devoted to the question of why Dylan was regarded as a spokesman.

Bradley: What was the image that people had of you? And what was the reality?
Dylan: The image of me was certainly not a songwriter or a singer. It was more like some kind of a threat to society in some kind of way.
Bradley: Surely your songs were viewed as anthems that sparked a generation?
Dylan: They weren't sermons. If you examine the songs, I don't believe you're gonna find anything in there that says that I'm a spokesman for anybody or anything really.
Bradley: But they saw it?
Dylan: They must not have heard the songs.

I would argue that this perception of Dylan as spokesman of a generation should be mentioned briefly in the lead, and more substantively in the text. I've supplied cites which I hope substantiate these points. Mick gold (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mickgold for the invite, I have been watching. "Reluctant" suggests that he was elected and he accepted the role. I don't think that's correct or that wrong. He was a figurehead for a generation and that is important to state, The fact that he denied and systematically destroyed that concept is important to note. How it should be done, I am not sure, but if I have something else to add, I will. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion a "reluctant figurehead" is someone who has accepted that they are a figurehead, but they have done so with reservations. Dylan has unreservedly rejected the notion that he was a "figurehead". How about: "The press often suggested to Dylan in interviews that he was a figurehead or a spokesman for a generation. Dylan has rejected this notion." Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting! How about:

Much of Dylan's most celebrated work dates from the 1960s when his songs chronicled social unrest. In interviews, journalists suggested to Dylan that he was a figurehead or spokesman for his generation but he would deny or ridicule the idea. Nevertheless, early songs such as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'" became anthems for the American civil rights and anti-war movements.
Mick gold (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I support Mick gold's suggestion. I believe it has good flow while maintaining conciseness and capturing the gist of the Dylan's rejection of the label. I agree with Bus stop's original point that maybe "reluctant" was not precise. Moisejp (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we make a few tweaks to it? How about: "Much of Dylan's most celebrated work dates from the 1960s when his songs chronicled social unrest. In interviews, journalists suggested to Dylan that he was a figurehead or spokesman for his generation but he denied or ridiculed the idea. Nevertheless, early songs such as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'" became anthems for the American civil rights and anti-war movements." Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, slight extra tweak, How about: "Much of Dylan's most celebrated work dates from the 1960s when his songs chronicled social unrest. In interviews, journalists suggested that Dylan was a figurehead or spokesman for his generation but he denied or ridiculed the idea. Nevertheless, early songs such as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'" became anthems for the American civil rights and anti-war movements." Mick gold (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Counter-suggestion: "Dylan's work of the 1960s often alluded to the social changes taking place at that time. The press often alluded to Dylan as a figurehead or a spokesman of his generation. Dylan was not accepting of such titles. Nevertheless, early songs such as "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'" became anthems for the American civil rights and anti-war movements." Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think this is as good as your previous suggestion. Using the word "alluded" twice, in two consecutive sentences, is not good style. The sentence, "Dylan's work of the 1960s often alluded to the social changes taking place at that time", is more clunky than the earlier version, "Much of Dylan's most celebrated work dates from the 1960s when his songs chronicled social unrest." The sentence: "Dylan was not accepting of such titles." sounds extremely awkward. The closest we've come to consensus thus far is your previous draft [16], so I've gone and inserted that version into the article. I've reduced the phrase "figurehead or spokesman" to "spokesman" since that is the label which Dylan treats so dismissively in his autobiography, Chronicles. Mick gold (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this revision made by Mick gold, but would suggest a tweak (I know, as if there haven't been enough suggested tweaks already, but here goes): rather than "he denied or ridiculed the idea", how about "he rejected the idea". More encompassing, less wordy. Just my 2¢ worth.--JayJasper (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JayJasper, "less wordy" is good in lead para. Mick gold (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The revised wording is still a tad long-winded. I would have thought that the simple addition of the word "increasingly" to the original "reluctant figurehead" would have met the case? Straw Cat (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to make it less wordy. More than one editor objected to "reluctant figurehead" wording. Mick gold (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Good job. That's the most concise version yet. IMHO, problem solved.--JayJasper (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dylan: keyboards?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Mlpearc, you've twice deleted keyboards from Bob Dylan's infobox. You state: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used." I would point out that Dylan has not played guitar in live performances in last 2 years. The pattern in 2011 was that Dylan played 1 to 3 songs on guitar and 10 on keyboards. He first played keyboards on record in 1964, and has played keyboards increasingly in live performances and on records during last 15 years. Keyboards and harmonica are the only instruments Dylan has played live in last 2 years. It seems odd to insist that keyboards is not one of Dylan's principal instruments. What do other editors think? Mick gold (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as instruments Dylan is know for guitar, harmonica and vocals, anything else needs to be brought up in prose. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this dogmatic statement is true. Critics have been writing about Dylan's style of keyboard playing since the 1960s. Accounts of Dylan in live performance in last two years have focused on his reliance on keyboards. Mick gold (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a sneaky respect for both opinions here, Dylan's first professional gig was playing piano, (so says the article) some of his early "guitar" songs were composed and sometimes recorded with Dylan on piano. As far as I am aware (Mick can correct me, if necessary), LARS was composed on piano, so the piano is a formidable instrument and part of Dylan's creativity and performance. OTOH If it becomes standard practice to add every instrument soon we will see "tambourine" added for some singers! And quite frankly that won't do. @Mlpearc:. The idea of limiting to two instruments is very arbitrary, if it was one would be have to choose between harp and guitar? I looked at another artist who had 10 instruments and "vocals" listed. Perhaps, under the circumstances adding piano is accurate, not misleading and applicable in this instance. I promise not to try and add bass guitar and auto-harp (which could be supported by promo photos and text respectively).--Richhoncho (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I have not said anything about how many entries there should be, I am merely saying that the infobox is for for quick reference and for Dylan he is most widly known for vocals, guitar and harmonica and according to this document the infobox list is not for every single instrument the artist has ever been seen with. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case, as two of us agree that keyboards is a significant instrument for Dylan we can re-add into the infobox, where it has sat for some considerable time? --Richhoncho (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

His keyboard playing can easily be addressed in prose, I'd like to see more opinions on the matter. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In the great scheme of things missing "keyboards" from the infobox for a day or two won't make much difference. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mick gold: I agree with you that the Instruments field should read "Vocals, guitar, keyboards, harmonica". This is consistent with guidance for Template:Infobox musical artist, even though the article does not use that template. It uses Template:Infobox person appropriately. In addition to vocals, Dylan is primarily known for playing the guitar, keyboards, and harmonica. As you pointed out, in recent years—since 2006 actually—his primary stage instrument has been keyboards. Throughout his career he has recorded albums where his keyboards have played a prominant role in his sound—e.g., Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde, New Morning, Shot of Love, Time Out of Mind, and Tempest. The guidance that Mlpearc points to is good; it just doesn't apply in this case. Bede735 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the instrument parameter's MOS would still hold true no matter what infobox it was used in, (IMHO), but I didn't realize the extent of his keyboard use, I thought the use was more recent as in the couple of years as Mick gold had stated. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Mick gold and Richhoncho that keyboards should be included. Keyboards are among the main instruments he has played during his career, and would not fall into the "every instrument the subject has ever used" category. Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree w/ Mick gold, Richhoncho, Bede735 & Moisejp that keyboards should listed in the infobox. As has pointed out previously, he has primarily played keyboards in concert for the past decade or so (I can partly vouch for this, having seen him in '04 & '05, where he played keyboards almost exclusively in both shows). Note also that he played piano on the studio versions of songs such as "Ballad of a Thin Man", "Blind Willie McTell" and "Make You Feel My Love" which rank among his most noted and acclaimed songs. Plus, he is credited with piano/keyboards on at least one or a small handful of tracks on the vast majority of his albums. So clearly, keyboards rank among his primary instruments and should be acknowledged as such.--JayJasper (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added keyboards as per this talk. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heroin

Can someone who knows their way around Wikipedia add the heroin addiction, and cite Bob Dylan's own words and the BBC broadcast of same? Dylan talks about his using heroin in the 1960s. It was a taped interview with journalist Robert Shelton.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13513103

Bob Dylan tapes reveal drug addiction ahead of his 70th 23 May 2011 The man dubbed the voice of a generation, Bob Dylan, has admitted he had a heroin habit at the height of his fame. It was revealed in an interview from the 1960s but it has only just been released, on the eve on his 70th birthday. Will Gompertz reports.

I know this is hardly news and has been widely known since the 1960s, but until the BBC broadcast Bob Dylan's own words it may not have been reliable enough for Wikipedia.

EDLIS Café 14:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs) EDLIS Café 14:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The account of heroin use is already in the article, at the end of the Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde section:

During his 1966 tour, Dylan was described as exhausted and acting "as if on a death trip".[104] D. A. Pennebaker, the film maker accompanying the tour, described Dylan as "taking a lot of amphetamine and who-knows-what-else."[105] In a 1969 interview with Jann Wenner, Dylan said, "I was on the road for almost five years. It wore me down. I was on drugs, a lot of things ... just to keep going, you know?"[106] In 2011, BBC Radio 4 reported that, in an interview that Robert Shelton taped in 1966, Dylan said he had kicked heroin in New York City: "I got very, very strung out for a while ... I had about a $25-a-day habit and I kicked it."[107] Some journalists questioned the validity of this confession, pointing out that Dylan had "been telling journalists wild lies about his past since the earliest days of his career."[108][109]

This is cited to the BBC report [17]. Mick gold (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Occupation,

I see "record producer" has been added as an occupation. As far as I am aware he has only produced his own recordings occasionally but never as occupation meaning paid as, or employed as. Can it be removed? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Dylan has consistently produced his own records since "Love And Theft" (2001) under pseudonym Jack Frost, but, as you say, not a producer of anyone else. I'd be happy to see this occupation removed. Mick gold (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bob Dylan categories

In this edit, SNUGGUMS removed the categories Category:American Jews, Category:Jewish American musicians, and Category:Jewish American songwriters, from the Dylan article with the edit summary "Dylan converted to Christianity".

Subject of BD religious beliefs has caused controversy and much discussion on Talk page in the past. BD page has achieved stability for some time by including both Jewish and Christian categories. It's undeniable Dylan was born into a Jewish family and had his bar mitzvah at age 13. Dylan has supported the Chabad Lubavitch movement in telethons in 1989 and 1991, and has been reported as attending synagogue services in the 21st century. It's undeniable Dylan espoused a born-again version of Christianity between 1979 and 1983, and has revisited his Christian beliefs on several occasions, including participation in the 2003 album Gotta Serve Somebody: The Gospel Songs of Bob Dylan and the 2009 Christmas album. I would argue BD religious beliefs are best accommodated by including both Jewish and Christian categories. Mick gold (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, a "bar mitzvah" is not a prerequisite to being a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In support of your comment, there are plenty of people who are categorized by this and that religion, that they have renounced. For anybody to decide what religion Dylan is/was is faintly ridiculous... However I have looked and there are 50+ categories and surely some of them need thinning out as non-defining? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Dylan never "renounced" being a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I've removed 5 categories: Film directors from Minnesota, Island Records artists (this is just licensing Asylum Records), American memoirists, Harmonica blues musicians, and American people of Ukrainian-Jewish descent (we already list Russian-Jewish descent and Lithuanian-Jewish descent). Mick gold (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The best reason for adding the categories in question is simply to aid the reader in navigating the category system. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• About the origins: If the grandparents came from Kars Province of Turkey then they were possibly Molokans. Maybe you could find some sources on this and add it. --176.239.12.235 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic intonation

Do any editors have any sources about Dylan's idiosyncratic intonation? It seems to me that a frequent criticism of Dylan is that he "doesn't sing in tune" yet cover versions of his songs that are equal tempered seem to lack the essence of his definitive performances. So my question -- and I do have one -- is "Are Dylan's compositions essentially microtonal?" SageGreenRider (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Should George Harrison and Johnny Cash be added as "Associated Acts"?

Should George Harrison be added as an "Associated Act"? They collaborated and influenced each other throughout the late 60s and into the 70s, and George covered several Dylan cuts over the years. Other evidence: a visit with Dylan and The Band helped inspire George to embrace a back-to-basics approach in late Beatles; Bob & George did a recording session together in 1970 or so; Dylan was one of the top-billed acts at The Concert for Bangladesh; and so forth. Obviously, they were together in the Traveling Wilburys later, but I think adding George as Associated Act would be appropriate. He's one of Dylan's key cohorts over the years.

Also, Johnny Cash sang with him on the second version of "Girl from the North Country," from Nashville Skyline. Cash had gifted Dylan with his guitar in 1964 at Newport, and Cash wrote some liner notes for him or some such. They were massive influences on each other Dylan's song "Wanted Man" has only been released on a Johnny Cash record. I think adding Johnny Cash as Associated Act would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.229.182 (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you've made a compelling case for adding Harrison & Cash to the list of Associated Acts. I would favor doing so.--JayJasper (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There are fairly specific criteria for an associated act at Template:Infobox musical artist, which includes "collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album". Since Harrison and Cash each collaborated on an album with Dylan (Harrison on The Concert for Bangladesh (album) and Cash on Nashville Skyline), it seems that the criteria are met. BTW, since this issue has been raised, are the criteria met for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Grateful Dead, and Mark Knopfler who are currently in the infobox? Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Dylan toured with Petty & the Heartbreakers backing him in the mid-80s, Petty was also a fellow Traveling Wilbury; Dylan also did a collaborative tour with the Grateful Dead in the late 80's, resulting in the album Dylan & the Dead; Knopfler co-produced the Infidels album, and played guitar on the Slow Train Coming album. So to your multipronged question, I would answer yes, yes & yes.--JayJasper (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I agree with Jay Jasper. I would add that Knopfler has toured with Dylan in the last 10 years and they have performed together on stage. According to Howard Sounes's biography, Down The Highway: The Life Of Bob Dylan, Dylan asked to join the Grateful Dead in 1989 but was vetoed by Phil Lesh. (p. 435) Mick gold (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bob Dylan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.americanheritage.com/email/articles/web/20060729-bob-dylan-motorcycle-woodstock-methamphetamine-robert-shelton-howard-sounes-ed-thaler.shtml

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2016

Add this to References - Section: A map of Bob Dylan's New York: https://uebermaps.com/maps/2735-bob-dylans-new-york-city Mtin79 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Question: What information does this source verify? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Mtin79: In order to add references to the article, it must add credence and verify information. You haven't specified what this is for; marking this request as answered. You may re-open this request if you add further information. st170e^talk 13:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. The request was to put the link in References, which of course is not appropriate, but I think it might fit nicely in External Links. Sundayclose (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. If this is a request to add an external link, it's unclear to me that the addition falls in the guidelines of Wikipedia:External links. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)