Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:10, 7 April 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:Farcfailed

This article was reviewed by The Guardian on October 24, 2005. Comments: It was rated 8/10. For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Archive 1 Archive 2

œuvre?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cafe Wha?

I created the Cafe Wha? page. Worth mentioning in Bob Dylan page.

A section dedicated to covers of Bob Dylan songs done by popular bands

I think it would be wise, since Bob Dylan is one of the most covered artists of all time, to includea section dedicated to Bob Dylan songs covered by other artists. But maybe instead, because this page is so crowded a whole new page should be created. here are some songs that would make the list: "Maggie's Farm" by Rage Against the Machine "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by Eric Clapton and Guns n' Roses I am forgeting the many other songs, so i think it would be wise for another person to start the page.

"Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by Roger Waters, and also by Avril Lavinge; "All I really want to do" by Cher come to my mind. Behdad 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"All Along the Watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix and "Forever Young" by Joan Baez

This would be an informative list. See a similar one on the Leonard Cohen article. <pov>Given Dylan's iconic status, I don't think a List of Bob Dylan songs covered by other artists would be out of place if the page is too long.</pov> I would surely contribute to it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Subterraenean Homesick Blues by chili peppers --Klyv

I agree that there should just be a separate list page for that, but what about songs written by but seldom/never performed by Bob Dylan? Does that count as a cover, or would there have to be yet another distinction made...I think that in Dylan's case it is a fairly important one. --lehkost

Updates?

Live at the Gaslight 1962 and the seventh volume of The Bootleg Series were released not long ago (about a month or less), and I think that we should at least put in a mention. We can't go about compromising the Wiki's up-to-dateness, can we?

And, also, someone linked to Live 1975, Rolling Thunder Revue as just Live 1975, which is a bad link.

Kaishin 01:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS FROZEN

Nothing is going to happen to this article until it is unprotected. It will not be unprotected until Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Monicasdude has been resolved. As has been said above, we need the issues in that RfC resolved before the article can be unlocked, and the more opinions we get the easier it will be to arrive at some satisfactory resolutions. Perhaps you would like to add your own comments there. Soul Embrace 22:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words: This Misplaced Pages-Article has faild to be an ecellent one. Not so ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

This article has been protected against all edits for about 27 days in the past month. That's a ridiculously long period of protection over a squabble between a few editors on this wiki. Moreover the RfC which is given as a pretext for page protection has not been edited since Sep 16th, five days ago. I'm unprotecting so that the page can be edited. Editors who are aware that their edits are being discussed in the dispute should probably discuss proposed changes first and gain consensus. All others should feel free to edit. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this unprotection is premature. Lots of articles that I've seen remain protected much longer than 27 days (we had a problem user on Nehru, and that got locked for several months, for example). The RfC has been edited multiple times in the last day (but on the talk page, i.e. discussion; we've stalled waiting for Monicasdude to respond to the RfC on the main page).

Nonetheless, since it is unlocked, please keep an eye, editors, on shennanigans by Monicasdude. I suspect, in particular, that he will quickly litter the article with link spam to his personal sites. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the unprotection is premature. Tony, did you look at the Talk page of the RfC? Activity has moved there because threaded debates aren't allowed in the RfC itself. We were trying to arrive at a remedy that would take effect upon unprotection of the article, but now you've unprotected it and the same old revert wars have started right up. Please reconsider and reprotect until our proposals for remedies can be polled. JDG 05:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A disputed section: proselytical Christian songs

Since the disputed section was discussed by several users during the protection period, and the majority of comments opposed it, and because no one actively disputed admin: Ryan Delaney's declaration that lyrics characterizations of that sort was inappropriate as original research, I deleted the section without inserting the alternative text I'd previously proposed. The article is therefore silent, for the moment, on a point for which no consensus has been reached. I expect you'll now see why this dispute reached an intractable stage. Monicasdude 18:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

All editors except Monicasdude support inclusion of cooperatively developed language. If you have a variant to propose: put it here first! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The main disputed passage appears to be:

After composing and recording proselytical Christian songs over the course of his prior three albums, on 1983's well-received Infidels Dylan returned to writing predominantly secular songs, with a few songs that obliquely suggest Christian themes, but without a proselytical tone.

If, as Monicasdude maintains, the contested statement is an interpretation rather than a fact, it should be sourced ("X described Y as..."). If it's a disputed fact, then it should be removed until a source establishing that it's a fact can be provided. Either way a source should be provided to support the disputed text. It doesn't really matter how many people agree on the wording; consensus cannot be used to get around Misplaced Pages:No original research.

Prior tries

It does seem to me that the term "proselytical tone" is a matter of interpretation. The phrase "returned to writing predominantly secular songs" implies that Dylan not only composed some "proselytical Christian songs" in the three albums running up to Infidels, but predominantly "proselytical Christian songs". This statement should either be supported or it shouldn't be present in the text. --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

More than "predominantly" on the "Christian trilogy"; the first two at least are exclusively so. Prior to the RfC and the page freeze, I attempted providing external quoations supporting the characterization, but Monicasdude took them immediately out as "unreliable" (i.e. Allmusic.com). This is all in the RfC, and here on this talk page. I'm more than happy to work out a mutually acceptable phrasing (using external quotes or otherwise), but Monicasdude continues to refuse anything other than a reversion to his favored version, verbatim. This is what the whole RfC was about (not the particular phrase, the non-cooperation). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop with the personal attacks and concentrate on the material. Is the word "proselytical" appropriate here? That has a specific meaning: attempting to convert someone to a religion or doctrine. Some religious music is proselytical in tone, some isn't. For instance the Saint Matthew Passion is about as religious a piece of music as you could find, but it isn't proselytical. It takes Christian belief for granted. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

During the earlier edit history, editors attempted a number of different adjectives to modify "Christian". I think another editor had first used "public", and I later tried "overt". I think "predominantly Christian" was in the sequence. I settled on "proselytic" because it seemed like the most accurate (and compromise) word. In every case, Monicasdude refused to suggest any compromise or adjusted language, but simply mass reverted to his verbatim version (just like now).

Using that word allows "proselytical" allows that some later songs might still insinuate xtian themes, while drawing the accepted contrast between the "Christian trilogy" and later albums. The word is quite precise in characterizing the quality of the three recordings mentioned. I don't think the matter really merits a 5000 word description, since it is simply meant to state an understanding shared by essentially everyone in the world who is familiar with Dylan, other than Monicasdude. That said, I am by no means terribly attached to the exact language I proposed. Any other formulation that gets at the general meaning is fine by me (I do think after some revisions the form I found is pretty clear as to scope of meaning). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well how about sticking to facts? By this I mean try to make the statement as factual as possible and remove interpretive words such as "proselytical Christianity".

On Slow Train

I've had a look at one or two of the tracks from Slow Train Coming (the title track, and man gave names to all the animals). Slow train (from memory) contains a reference to wondering if his friends are saved. There may be some Christian imagery in there, too, but if so it must be fairly well hidden because most of it seems to be a classic Dylan political diatribe. Man Gave Names seems to be, in its lyrics, a rather banal nursery song. Maybe I looked at the wrong ones, but this doesn't suggest proselytism to me, though obviously he's incorporating his religious thoughts into his songs.

So on this outing I'd suggest we try:

The lyrics in Dylan's three albums after his conversion incorporated references to his religious feelings, but Infidels brought a return to predominantly secular themes. --Tony Sidaway 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That's great by me. Give it a try, and see if Monicasdude immediately reverts it. It's almost identical to the first (short) version that Monicasdude started reverting; but perhaps he'll give your edit deference because he knows you're an admin (I have doubts about it, but try). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Btw. Some lyrics from Slow Train Coming sort of show the tone:

 But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
 You're gonna have to serve somebody,
 Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
 But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Or

 There's a Man up on a cross and He's been crucified.
 Do you have any idea why or for who He died?
 When you gonna wake up, when you gonna wake up
 When you gonna wake up and strengthen the things that remain?

It's kinda hard to characterize those as other than "proselytic". Saved is even more so. Saying that kinda, maybe, if you squint just right, you can discern a Christian metaphor in, e.g. "Things have changed" really misses the rather obvious change in lyrical content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Attacks?

Well there you go again with the attacks. Could you stop that please? It's fundamental Misplaced Pages policy to avoid personal attacks and that policy exists precisely because we're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia and not engaging in petty personal squabbles. I'll wait for some input from other editors, including Monicasdude, but in any case I won't be performing any edits. --Tony Sidaway 00:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying that Monicasdude has done these things in the past is not a personal attack, it's just factual. Calling me stupid, ignorant, meglomanaical, delusional, a "fragrant " hypocrite, liar, and so on.... well, it's not quite as nice. And that's just in the last couple days. It's hard to see a lot of good faith in there. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Silliness of dispute

The disputed sentence shouldn't be under dispute. It is far and away the consensus of published comment (and that's what we're about-- to summarize critical opinion, not to present "fact", as there is no "fact" in art). Oddly, I am in basic agreement with Mdude that Dylan probably has not entirely dropped Christian beliefs. But when it comes to the explicit content of songs and albums it cannot be doubted that Infidels marks a turn away from a proselytizing approach. I will join in editing corrections and reversions should Mdude continue his attempts to expunge this sentence or any sentence with the same meaning. JDG 05:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not know myself whether "Dylan entirely dropped Christian beliefs". Or entirely retained them, for that matter. Or dropped them in 1986, then held them again in 1987. To make any claim either way violates WP:V and WP:NOR. I have no more idea about what Dylan may or may not believe religiously than I do... well, about whatever it is that Monicasdude believes on the question. Despite all the obstructionist editing, I haven't even begun to fathom what position Monicasdude thinks he's trying to defend, in all honesty. Maybe just the position that doggerel is better than clarity :-(.

But no sentence ever reverted by Monicasdude ever stated anything about those possible personal beliefs, but simply about the recorded material, which is well known to all the editors here (and to all the biographers, reviewers, etc). The sentence itself (or something much like it) is so plainly obvious as a summary that even asking for footnotes or sources is a extremely silly and contentious—by a standard like that, each and every sentence might need external sources. What if I were to demand external verificationn in the article that Dylan really was born "Zimmerman", or that "Like a Rolling Stone" or "Jokerman" really were songs of his. The absurdity of this whole painful process is that one can no more sensibly doubt the basic "Christian trilogy" idea than one can those other brute facts. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at about a half dozen songs from Slow Train Coming, I agree that it's possible to call the lyrics proselytism. Lulu, you say it's "far and away the consensus of published comment" that Dylan's works on the Christian period albums were "proselytical Christian songs". Let's move on to discussing the published comment. How did Rolling Stone magazine describe the albums? Well Christianity Today says Jan Wenner described Slow Train Coming as "artistically ambiguous". And there's a 1986 Rolling Stone interview (Gates of Eden Revisited) conducted by Toby Cresswell in which Cresswell says:

"When Dylan gave up writing specific protest songs in 1964, he began writing songs about hypocrisy, prejudice, injustice, malice, exploitation and cruelty. Those concerns are still the subject of his songs. At the same time he was writing love songs like "Love Minus Zero/No Limit", which is a tender and complete statement of affection that is also a religious statement. Dylan has sung of both sacred and profane love throughout his career, sometimes concentrating on one, sometimes on the other. Then there was the electric bite of pure rock & roll as portrayed on "Subterranean Homesick Blues," a song that Dylan notes, on the five-album 'Biograph' retrospective, was recorded in one take."

To me this doesn't sound like a music journalist who thinks of Dylan's Christian years as a distinct anomaly, a blast of proselytism, but as part of Dylan's work as an artist. A more overtly Christian artist then than at other times since, but nevertheless an artist.

The live material in that period doesn't seem to have been always new stuff, either, he made concessions to fans of his old stuff. A setlist from November 9, 1980,at the Warfield in San Francisco reads as follows:

1. Gotta Serve Somebody 2. I believe in You 3. Like a Rolling Stone 4. Man Gave Names to All the Animals 5. Precious Angel 6. Ain't Gonna Go to Hell 7. Girl of the North Country 8. Slow Train 9. Abraham, Martin and John 10. Let's Keep It Between Us 11. Covenant Woman 12. Solid Rock 13. Just Like a Woman 14. When You Gonna Wake Up? 15. Senor (Tales of Yankee Power) 16. In the Garden 17. Blowin' in the Wind

So he was playing those oldies back in 1980, supposedly at the height of his proselytism. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course Dylan's Christian trilogy is part of his work as an artist! I can't imagine anyone who would suggest otherwise. As an athiest, I frequently hum "Gotta serve somebody" in the shower (or Al Green's "Jesus is waiting", for that matter); he wrote some great songs during his overt/proselytic/public/whatever Christian period. But it was a period in his career; likewise, earlier, Dylan moved from stricly acoustic to mostly electric instruments. Despite the apocrypha about jeers at a concert, no one ever claimed he stopped or started being a musical artist when he changed instruments. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with any of the half dozen other formulations that Monicasdude blind reverted before. And I'm perfectly happy with the suggested sentence you propose above. The dispute isn't about whether the adjective "proselytic" is the best one, it's only about whether Monicasdude will allow any sentence he did not personally write into the article. FWIW: the "far and away" characterization was JDG's (but I concur, obviously).

During the brief earlier unprotection a couple days ago, he did the same silliness about not letting an anon editor state the plain fact that George Jackson was killed in prison (claiming that fact was somehow "POV"). He didn't suggest that the sentence might read differently, but simply that anything someone else added must be reverted as non-Monicasdude. Seriously, try editing the article to your version, and see what Monicasdude does! I think it will help drive in the actual issue for you. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Could we please stop with the personal attacks? I've asked you many times before to stop this. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to various matters, as briefly as I can state things:

Proselytical v. Christian v. . . . The standard/most common description, in biographies, in reviews, etc, has been "evangelical"; a Google search on "Bob Dylan" and "evangelical" turns up over 100,000 hits -- some, no doubt, spurious in terms of this discussion. On "Bob Dylan" and "proselytic(al)," 70 total, and the only nonspurious hits were to the Misplaced Pages article or mirrors.

Concert performances. This edit is factually inaccurate. In concert, from November 1979 through May 1980, Dylan sang only religious/explicitly Christian/evangelical songs. Documented, concert by concert, here: and here and here . (Full disclosure: one night, near the end of this run of concerts, he riffed on the instrumental intro to Lay Lady Lay for a minute or so, then segued into one of his evangelical songs. That was it. Didn't sing a word of that, or any other, older song.) He resumed playing older songs, "secular" and otherwise, in the fall of 1980, touring in support of "Saved," the second album of the supposed "Christian trilogy." As Tony Sidaway quite correctly points out, there's a fairly clear continuum or religious influence/expression in Dylan's music; it's stronger/more conspicuous at different stages of his career.

"Infidels" and secular/religious music: Far from there being a consensus that Infidels marked Dylan's return to secular songwriting, the record, both in terms of contemporaneous reports and later commentary, shows a general recognition that the songs on Infidels showed Dylan continuing to express religious ideas in a non-evangelical mode, from a perspective that couldn't be pigeonholed simply as "Christian," "secular," or any other convenient term. For example, the NYTimes review described the album as "quasi-Biblical"; the Boston Globe noted that "there are still some Christian fire-and-brimstone warnings" on the LP. (A few years later, writing in the NYTimes, Jon Pareles said that "Empire Burlesque" was Dylan's first predominantly secular album of the decade, not "Infidels.") In the mid-1980s, biographer Bob Spitz called the album "less ecclesiastical" than its predecessors, a difference in degree rather than kind. In the early 1990s, Entertainment Weekly, publishing an overview of Dylan's career, described "Infidels" as an album which expressed Dylan's religious ideas from a broader, less explicit perspective than the evangelical albums. (EW's hardly a learned voice in criticism, but its comments show that this view of Dylan's work was hardly limited to hard-core fans or religiously committed listeners.) Dylan biographer Clinton Heylin, in both his published biography, Behind the Shades (Revisited) and his Recording Sessions book, notes that all the songs on Infidels include Biblical references, that three are specifically rooted in New Testament texts, and interprets the album as a whole as an extension of Dylan's thoughts on "the end times," apocalypse, and the Book of Revelations, which he had "preached" about at length during his evangelical touring. Howard Sounes, in "Down The Highway," is less explicit in interpreting the album, but concludes that both Dylan's music and personal life continued to reflect his recently acquired, still evolving, religious beliefs. People can disagree about the interpretation of particular songs, or about the balance of secular and religious concerns in Dylan's songwriting on the album. But there should be no denying that the interpretation of the album as "predominantly secular" is, at best, an often- and strongly-disputed opinion. Monicasdude 03:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful! I'm more than happy to accept this collaborative suggestion for phrasing (it's changed accordingly). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess Tony Sidaway's songlist was from slightly later in 1980; that's the point, right? I kinda think that six months worth of concerts is a bit too narrow to single out as particularly significant. If it had even been a year, that's more interesting. But I guess if the briefness of the exclusively evangelical touring is highlighted, that's OK to include. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

In other words, the characterization of "predominantly secular" is precisely accurate, right? Certainly that's exactly what the WP article on Infidels says as well. I guess I'll try to stick in a very brief clause that indicates Infidels is the "start of the transition to predominantly secular songs" rather than simply the end point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A half-dozen citations pointing out an extensive set of religious referents hardly supports the idea that calling the album "predominantly secular" is "precisely accurate." Not that accuracy has been a concern manifested by you in this dispute, given your consistent failure to provide any directly relevant sources for your claims. Monicasdude 20:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I implemented some of the information you wrote above into the article. I agree that infidels is not secular. but throughout the 80's he did move away from religion as the main focus of his new songs. -SECProto 21:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the matter?

Lulu, why did you change my link under the Commentary section without first discussing it? We have just seen the results of people wanting to dominate this page, and it seems that we are seeing it again. Tomorrow I am going to revert the link to the format I put it in before you chnaged it, unless you can put forth some strong reasons for not doing so. Anyone 7 11:15 CST 14 September, 2005

I didn't remove the external link, as I say in the edit history, I just wanted the short link descriptions in that section to look structurally similar. Having part of the description as a link, followed with no separation, by further description of the link, looks funny. I don't happen to agree with your analysis, but an external link to material that is "original research" in the WP sense is perfectly fine, just as long as it characterizes the general nature of the link.

Tell me what you think is important in the specific phrasing you used for the link, that was missed by the edited form. Most edits are not discussed first (how could they be); but certainly since you feel there was something innaccurate in my edit, let's agree to wording of the link. I think that if you want both the actual title and its characterization in the link you give, you should try to provide the same style for the links to things other people wrote (I presume those pages have such information on them; I haven't followed the links). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. My main complaint is that you removed the article's title. That is the propminent feature of the link. That title alone was what was there before Monicasdude removed it calling it an "inexplicable link." I see that that title should be in quotation marks to be true to the article and copyright matters. But the rest of the description was added at the suggestion of JDG. The title is needed to let those many, many people who are familiar with the song get an idea of what the nature of the article is related to. That is why it should be there. To spark curiousity.

As to the what you say about the link being "original research," it is not really such. The subject in the article is supported by many scholars. There is a book called the Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai (a renown Jewish anthropoligist), published by Wayne State University Press (first in 1977 by another publisher) in which the author gives all kinds of sources (Rabbis, etc.) for the facts therein, which say the same basic things in various ways. The premise of my article is also in keeping with a long held tenet in the Kabbalah tradition. What may be called "original" is that I have simply said that such things lie at the root of Bob's thinking and experience. I have been passing out that article for well over a decade, and have never had anybody even attempt to tell me that the facts are incorrect. They may not believe what I say, but the facts stand outside of being my mere opinion, as they also appear to be Bob's. He is the one who has praised Her in song.

So, here is my suggested form of the link:

• "Come In, She Said, I'll Give You Shelter From The Storm" - discusses the Judeo-Christian feminine imagery in Bob Dylan's songs

That should all fit on one line. There are many places on the page where a link in blue is followed by a description in black (as I had it in the reposting). Just because the other Commentary links don't have the same format is irrelevant to me, as the same it seen throughout the page. So if that form is okay with you (and you are the only one who has ever complained about the title of my article being there), I will change it later today. Thank you. Anyone 7 10:00 am CST 23 September, 2005

That link form is fine, but could you please make the other links look similar? Uneven degrees of detail looks ugly. For example:

• "Bob Dylan: Tangled Up In Jews" - discusses the influence of Judaism on Dylan

FWIW, what you describe above is almost exactly what the term "original research" means in a WP context. See WP:NOR. Original research doesn't mean "false", or "without argument in support", it means non-consensus opinion advocated by one or a few people. And as I wrote, that's what your article is The folks you cite as support do not themselves state: "I fully agree with Anyone"; you just feel implications can be drawn from their work. But even if those few sources explicitly supported your essay, that's just a couple people, not consensus. Not to belabor this point though, linking to original research is fine, at least in many cases, the restriction is on the WP text itself. The other links in the same section are just the same in this regard. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Lulu, I added the suggested descriptions to the other links, trying to be accurate to their content. I hope the symmetry is more aesthetically pleasing to you. If you want to change those, no complaint from me. I wish I had a forum to take a poll and see if I could get a consenus on the content of my article. But I have had a lot of people visit the article from Wiki and others who borrow the content for their web sites, and none have e mailed me and said I'm crazy. In my personal experience in sharing the view with other Dylan listeners I have had quite a bit of positive input. So maybe we have a silent consensus here. May I be so bold as to invite you to e mail me at the address at my web site, and state your opinion on the content of the article. I mean, who was Bob talking about in "Shelter..." when he said, "If I could only turn back the clock to when God and Her were born...? Shalom. Anyone 7 4:35 pm CST 23 September, 2005

PS I like that you have put in the "Bob Dylan: Tangled Up In Jews" words. I missed it in your suggestion. Anyone 7 4:46 pm CST 23 September, 2005

Frankly, and not to start controversy, but I do not believe that this link should even be on this page. It starts with a collection of quotations from the bible, maybe some other religious texts as well. This first set of quotations has no explanation of how they relate to Bob Dylan's songs at all. It then has a collection of definitions to explain words in the previous quotes. After that, it has another group of quote, again with certain parts in bold, but no description of how they relate to dylan's songs. Finally, it has one paragraph describing some sort of relation between Shelter from the Storm and The Book of Proverbs, which doesnt make a whole lot of sense. (at least not to me, perhaps because i only skimmed through what was said further up in your article.) It then finishes with a couple more religious quotes, and two unexplained quotes from Bob Dylans songs. (These quotes seem to be speaking of Females in general, rather that divine beings personified as females, but again that is my opinion.) Just my two cents. -SECProto 02:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not very impressed with the linked article either. Like SECProto, I can't really make heads or tails of what the link is actually claiming (I skimmed too, but no thesis sentence jumped out). But the standard for including a link to something are much lower than for text in the article body itself. And there seem to be three other linked articles right next to the "Anyone" article that argue different opinions about Dylan's religious beliefs and how those might have affected his songs. I don't really think we'd be any worse off with that whole link subsection removed, but I think singling out Anyone's "analysis" for removal is asking for trouble. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As one who bends over to pick up pennies, SECProto's "two cents" are of value to me. The same with Lulu's input. Their main complaint seems to be with the format of my linked article, rather than the points brought out therein. But this is no surprise to me as SECProto states, "i only skimmed through what was said further up in your article." Likewise, Lulu says, "I skimmed too." So I cannot give them a passing grade on their reports of the article. SECProto also says,"doesnt make a whole lot of sense." Lulu similarly says, "I can't really make heads or tails of what the link is actually claiming." There are some very key sentences in the article which quite plainly state the relationship between Bob's songs and the Bible fact related in the article. If one does more that a cursive reading of the article, the point of how the Bible facts therein relate to Bob's song are quite apparent.

But I must admit that the article was somewhat brief in defining the relationship of the Bible quotes to Bob's song. This is due to the fact that it was first written to fit on one piece of paper folded into a booklet format. Due to your inputs I see that it could use some improvement, which I may attempt (as time allows). But I must say that there seems to be an underlying antipathy to anything in Bob's article that touches on religion. I say this because the article contained some wording that revealed that enmity. That is, the word "proselytizing" (or another form of the word) was used in describing Bob's so-called "Christian period." To many people the word "proselytizing" is a dirty word. There are many countries in this world which have laws against people proselytizing, some even pronouncing death upon those who engage in said activity. But for such a description to appear in Wiki in the context it was used only adds fuel to the fire of bigotry and close-mindedness.

As I am well aware (and as it appears that Dylan is also aware of this), some people just can't read anything from the Bible without having a mind blowing negative reaction. Nonetheless, Bob, evidently found such a comfort in reading the Bible and believing in God that he risked his career to proclaim his faith, no matter that people would do what he well portrays in his song, "I Believe in You" - "They show me to the door. They say 'don't back no more,' cause I don't be like they like me to..." It seems like I may be in a similar position here (as well as those others who have links under the Commentary section), for, of the Commentary section, Lulu says, "I don't really think we'd be any worse off with that whole link subsection removed." He further states, incorrectly, that, "seem to be three other linked articles right next to the 'Anyone' article that argue different opinions about Dylan's religious beliefs and how those might have affected his songs." I cannot see how anyone one who has read the two other links to religious articles (one to a Jewish source, and one to a Christian source) can come to the conclusion that either my article or theirs in any way "argue different opinions about Dylan's religious beliefs." Which of us is arguing against the others, or anyone else, for that matter? I am in harmony with the others' opinions, as far as they go. There is nothing in their articles that argues against my view. Sounds like someone may be, wittingly or unwittingly, stirring up trouble where none exists. As to the "Ambiguity..." link, I think it is an insult to Bob Dylan, but that is another matter. But, as Bob said in an interview in the 1960s when asked what he thought about those who give their commentary on his songs, "I welcome them....with open arms." So, maybe we should ask Bob about whether or not the Commentary section should be there, keeping in mind that he wrote, "Do you take me for such a fool to think I'd make contact with the one who tries to hide what he don't know to begin with." (Positively 4th Street). He never has been very tolerant of bigotry, has he?

So, if you want me to quote the sentences in my linked article that, to me, clearly express the meaning of it all, and how it relates to Bob's songs, I will - either privately through the e mail address on my web site, or here. Peace and Love, Anyone7, 4:29 CST, 9/27/2005

Thank you for taking my comments well. :) Now that the links have been sorted out, I actually have no problems with leaving a link to your article on this page. I only hope that your article could be expanded somewhat more to make more sense, I would recommend an essay-style of writing for simple ease of reading.

As Lulu said, singling out a single one of those group of links is not a good idea, and as Dylan did have religious beliefs, I feel the group of links would be better off staying in - They are well described, and if someone is doing further research into dylan's religion - i think they are useful. -SECProto 02:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Chill, Anyone7. Neither SECProto nor I are going to remove your link My hunch is that different essays (as those linked) must differ in some respect, but if you say you wholly agree with both the other sites, fine by me. I do tend to agree with SECProto's comment that your essay would be clearer if it was more essay styled: i.e. start with a thesis sentence summarizing the position(s) you hold, followed by evidence or argument for that position. But I don't really care; you are more than welcome to put whatever material you like on your web site.

FWIW, I don't think of proselytic as a dirty word, and I ain't advocating execution, nor any harm, to anyone hereabouts, whether or not they are proselytic. Of course, neither am I going to believe anything that anyone proselytizes. But in any case, my latest edit, at Monicasdude's suggestion, uses "evangelical" instead, which seems fine as an adjectvie. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Commentary on religious themes

I noticed that someone changed the Commentary title to "Commentary on Religious Themes." Is this appropriate as the link to the "ambiguity" article appears to be non-religious? Also, should someone else want to add some commentary of a non-religious nature, where would they put it? Therefore, I think the word "Commentary" would be better. Especially as each of the links now has its own description. I will not make the change back to what it was. But if the one who narrowed the section by adding the other words, wants to undo it, I do think it will be better. Anyone7 10:55 CST, 27 September 2005

"Commentary" by itself seems too generic. Just about everything linked to, in every heading, is commentary of some sort. If you have an idea for a better characterization of what's common in the four links, please make the change. (though I do wish, Anyone7, that you'd register a regular account so the edits are easier to identify, and comments easier to sign; quite likely the username 'Anyone7' is available, or something else you like). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I do have an account under Anyone7, but I forget to log in under it each time. I must admit that I do not know how to properly use the account, and what to include in my account info. That is partially because the account page is corrupted on my screen, with words overlapping each other and the fillin boxes. That may be due to the fact that I am on a Mac. I have logged in when making edits, but not always for the Talk pages. How about "Commentary on Lyrics" or something to that effect. That seems to broaden the category to include non-religious commentary on Bob's lyrics (which is what the "Ambiguity" link is), while narrowing the section to comments on the lyrics, which seems to the nature of all the links. Anyone7 9:50 CST, 28 September 2005.

Main Portrait

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems in mass change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instruments

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

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

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

The anti-lead again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of reversions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly, I think this should go to RFAr. --Ryan Delaney 21:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Songwriter

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

Fair use lyrics

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

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

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

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

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

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

How bout dis?

Hiya folks. How do you like the following sentence:

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

JDG 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Street-Legal's Original Reception

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

Love & Theft Reception

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

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

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

I googled for: Zimmerman or Zimmermann ? Bob Dylan

And Google asked me: Meinten Sie: Zimmermann or Zimmermann ? Bob Dylan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What type of harmonica does Bob usually use?

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

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

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

Best of Bob Dylan album

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

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

Sermonette

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

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

What point are you trying to make here?

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

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

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

Judas?

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

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

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

Are the "Categories" entries correct ?

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

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

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

More ROHA random changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odessa is in Ukraine!

Dylan Radio show

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

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

At what point does personal spite become simple vandalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monicasdude back at obstructionism

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

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

User:Lulu personalizes another editing dispute

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

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

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

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

Oeuvre

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

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

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

Weatherman section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Clayton

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

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

Image copyright issue

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

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

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

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

Denying secular turn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

definitive

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

Live Show Statistics

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

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

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

Pseudonyms

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

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

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

Next edit war?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NPOV. WP:NOR. Neutral point of view; no original research (which includes esthetic commentary). I agree, in general terms, with many of the revisions you made (and reinstated several of your major changes/deletions); but there were some serious problems in details (and POV) in some of the new material added, and, unfortunately, you unfortunately, undid some very painfully negotiated compromise language, especially with regard to Dylan's "born-again" period. I'm going to go back through the article tonight and, I expect, reinstate even more of your revisions. And, with that as a middle ground, we can all work on other differences and details. And, while I'm here, I'll note that I've again revised the contentiously argued history of Dylan's signing with Columbia: the only two people who were there for the event, Dylan and Hammond, both say in their autobiographies that Dylan signed on the same day he recorded with Carolyn Hester, which Columbia studio records list as September 29, 1961 (though some sources say September 30); and Robert Shelton, in No Direction Home, says Dylan told him about the signing on September 29. Monicasdude 04:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

There it says: ...or request unprotection

"This page is protected from editing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobel Nomination?

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

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

External links

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

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

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

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

Drug use?

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

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

"List of people likened to Bob Dylan"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputed signing date

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

Dylan's Signing with Columbia

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

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

• Externally peer reviewed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles by The Guardian