Talk:Bob Dylan/Archive 6

message: I happen to own a copy of this cd but i can't find information about it anywhere. does anyone know anything about it? I can upload a scan of the CD cover if it helps. 
Ore4444 10:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recorded in October 1962, they exist in numerous bootleg variations & as official Dylan album. There's a Wikipedia article about it: Live at The Gaslight 1962 Mick gold 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gaslight tapes 

message: This article used to have a section on the 1980s. It's vanished! The article now goes straight from Saved to Under the Red Sky. Where did the 1980s go?  Mick gold 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. SECProto 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Mick gold 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone seen the 1980s ? 

message: Is there actual proof that Dylan is indeed a vegetarian? I've read in some places that he is and I've also read that he just likes to get vegetables a lot but he really isn't a vegetarian. The reason I'm asking is because at the bottom of the page it lists him as a vegetarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.60.81.248 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob the Vegan.... 

message: A Wikipedia editor has added the information that Dylan first learnt his folk style of guitar playing from Marvin Karlins at University of Minnesota. I can find no reference to Marvin Karlins in any of the major Dylan biographies or reference books. I thought it worth adding that Dylan has always credited Odetta with turning him onto folk music, after youthful interest in rock'n'roll, and have left in a short reference to Karlins.   Mick gold 08:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odetta and Marvin Karlins 

message: pathetic:
http://negativland.com/pastor/layladylay.html
preacher thinks its funny to mangle the song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.122.58.14 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  check this out 

message: I think it's valid to include Gospel in Dylan's genres, since he made 2 Gospel album, Slow Train Coming & Saved, as well as many other songs that could be included in the Gospel tradition, eg Every Grain of Sand, Groom's Still Waiting at the Altar. Album of cover versions of Dylan's Gospel compositions by distinguished Gospel singers has been released: Gotta Serve Somebody.  
:Article states:
:Dylan's work in the late 1970s and early 1980s was dominated by his becoming, in 1979, a born-again Christian. He released two albums of exclusively religious material, exploring his own version of Gospel music.  Slow Train Coming (1979), is generally regarded as the more accomplished of these albums, winning him the Grammy Award as "Best Male Vocalist" for his song "Gotta Serve Somebody". The second album, Saved (1980), was not so well-received. When touring from the fall of 1979 through the spring of 1980 Dylan refused to play secular music.
:Mick gold 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two albums of non-secular music is not substantial or sufficient enough to make Gospel a main genre of Dylan's; the other genres represented (Folk, Rock, Blues, Country) are genres that have been enormously prevalent in his prolific career. If Gospel is mentioned, why not throw in Jazz, Showtunes, Pop, Singer-Songwriter, etc. etc. etc. etc., & anything & everything else he touched base on? He made two albums of non-secular music -- which is in & of itself a stretch to call Gospel music just because it's religious -- that doesn't mean the genre has a place beside the genres that Dylan has helped to reinvent over the years. It should definitely be mentioned in the article, but it's bordering on ridiculous to place it beside the others. ————Anthonylombardi 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled. You state (twice) that "Dylan made two albums of secular music." Surely the opposite is true. He made two album of sacred music (i.e. music dedicated to belief in Jesus) which is the opposite of secular. Mick gold 10:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant non-secular; I even edited it to fix it, but somehow it reverted back, though I'm not sure how. I just fixed it again. However, my point was obvious & it stands. ————Anthonylombardi 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could argue that Dylan did not devote 2 albums to Jazz or Showtunes, but I accept your overall point. It's probably ludicrous to argue about genres and categories when it comes to an artist as inclusive as Dylan. I recently heard him say on Theme Time Radio, "Personally, I never understood any kind of border patrol when it comes to music."  Mick gold 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan & Gospel 

message: Bob Dylan is not the stage name of Robert Allen Zimmerman. It's his name. He changed his name to Bob Dylan on 2 August 1962 in New York Supreme Court. It's the name on his passport, on all his albums, all legal documents, and on all his song copyrights.  Wording is consistent with Wikipedia entries on Elton John and David Bowie, artists who also changed their names legally. Mick gold 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Am I the only one who feels that this picture of Bob Dylan is not the best... i.e. it does not really look like Bob Dylan. If I was reading this article for the first time, I would have no real idea of what he looks like. I feel a better, clearer picture is in order
Cdmstewart 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. But every time someone tries to introduce a better photo of Dylan, it gets reverted for copyright reasons.  Mick gold 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it looks good with the 'Blonde on Blonde' cover as the main photo Cdmstewart 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Article Photo 

message: Upsinging is not a "point of view". It's a well-known aspect of Bob Dylan's current live show. Why are passages about upsinging deleted, while similarly obscure passages about his keyboard playing are not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.205.124.88 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done it. Mick gold 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upsinging 

message: if anyone cares to check out willie nelsons wiki page, it has a discography near the bottom of the page, with pictures. easy to read. Something like this should be considered for dylan's page, i like the concept.
pibwiki 03:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bob Dylan discography has its own page because of its length. THat page has the albu, covers on it much like the Willie Nelson page. - Akamad 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  check out willie 

message: In the 2005 film "Brokeback Mountain", a cover of "He Was A Friend of Mine" is sung by Willie Nelson and credited to Dylan (see IMDB). The song, however, was not written by Dylan, as can be read in www.bobdylan.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.37.244.60 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dylan's "He Was A Friend of Mine" was recorded in 1962 for his first album. It was not released until 1991's "The Bootleg Series, Vol. 1-3" where it bore the credit "Trad. adapted and arranged by Bob Dylan" - hence the credit on Willie Nelson's recording. Mick gold 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He was a friend of mine" in Brokeback Mountain 

message: If "Dylan was not trying to perform sprechgesang (nor was it likely Dylan was aware of the obscure song form)" then why mention this 'obscure song form' at all? We might as well say Woody Guthrie's and Dave Van Ronk's recordings were reminiscent of sprechgesang even though they were not trying to perform it, and had probably never heard of it.  The reference to Baez does follow better from the phrase 'more immediately palatable'. Mick gold 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprechgesang? 

message: I have been asking, "How should this article about Dylan present his evolving religious identity?" He hasn't really addressed the subject himself. I think the answer is that there is complex religious iconography in his poetry and music throughout his career, and that he is always engaged in dialog with what he reads, with the people he listens too, with his listeners, and with his own evolving beliefs. I am disturbed when people actually claim Dylan in some way, yet I think he has had a quiet presence as a Jew over the last 20 years. I am writing this section below to show the complexity of interpreting his songs in any period.  How do his songs fit into periods of his life? 
If I may, this is a good place to speculate on what it was that Dylan was saying in I dreamed I saw St. Augustine. The song dates from John Wesley Harding (1967), a full decade before his brief career as a gospel singer. Mack Gold brings it up above, in the discussion of Dylan and Judaism. My question is, what was Bob Dylan's own position in this song? What could it be that he was reading in 1967-68, and why does he identify in the song with the ones who put Augustine to death? I examined the song, and I find two very contradictory interpretations are possible. One would see it clearly as a forerunner to Dylan's later "gospel" period. The other interpretation is a "historical" view of the song in 1967-68, and it makes Dylan not one of the Jews that Augustinian theology addresses, but rather one of the Vandals that performed the actual murder. 
Augustine of Hippo was a late Roman theologian who comments on the Jews. (There is a section in the current English Wikipedia on St. Augustine and the Jews). Augustine is one who takes a relatively tolerant position towards Jews, at a time when Christianity is trying to stamp out the remnants of paganism, as well as a number of heresies, such as gnosticism and Manicheism. Augustine lives at a time when Christianity has become the imperial religion (except for a brief period in his boyhood when the apostate emperor Julian tries to restore paganism.) In his own life, Augustine was a Manicheian for a time before he became a Christian. 
While the late Roman Christians are consolidating their position, Augustine actually opposes the forcible conversion of the Jews. The current Wikipedia article seems to cast Augustine's views on Jews negatively, but in fact his position in his own time was that they should have a special inferior status, different from that of pagans or heretics. The Wikipedia entry is actually correct, it just lacks context. To Augustine, the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus and they were witnesses to the death of Jesus, but they were not to be punished for it by the church or forced to convert to Christianity. Rather, they were to be left alone, for they had a special status as witnesses, and Christ alone could remove the blinders from their eyes. In the English Book of Common Prayer, an early Protestant prayerbook that becomes a core text for Anglican and Episcopalian theology, there is a prayer for the Jews, that the veil may be lifted from their eyes. This phrase survived in Anglican/Episcopalian liturgy until late in the 20th century. 
Although this language is seen as demeaning to Jews today, in the early 5th century, when Augustine was around, it was relatively tolerant compared to some of Augustine's contemporaries. Although there are terrible crusades, pogroms, libels and such against Jews from the late Middle Ages down to the 20th century, Augustinian theology clearly opposed this. Augustine believed that the Jews had lost the Temple and had been exiled as punishment, but he wasn't for the Church punishing them any further. Augustine was actually the basis for toleration of the Jews in Europe when all other peoples in western Europe were being forced to convert to Christianity, and to a Roman version of Christianity at that. Although Augustine advocated toleration of Jews, he clearly echoed Christian negativity about the Jews. Augustine saw the Jews as having killed the messenger, perhaps so they could ultimately accept him. 
The "historical interpretation" would be that Dylan is imagining the real death of Augustine in 430 CE, at the age of roughly 75. Augustine is said to have died as the Vandals storm the city of Hippo. The Vandals were a barbarian tribe that penetrated through Gaul and Spain to cross the strait and conquer North Africa. If this is the vision of Dylan, then he is identifying with the barbarians that storm the city. Such an interpretation could have parallels with 1967-1968 (when the song is written), when across both Europe and the United States, old learning is under assault as students take over Universities, especially in France. So Dylan's position may have nothing to do with his own spiritual journey as a Jew who later went through a Christian period in his life.  
::I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,
::Alive as you or me,
::Tearing through these quarters
::In the utmost misery,
::With a blanket underneath his arm
::And a coat of solid gold,
::Searching for the very souls
::Whom already have been sold.
The "Christian interpretation" would be that Dylan is beginning to see himself as one of those Augustinian Jews who wander, not accepting Jesus. Dylan's vision here of Augustine reminds me of a Christian view of the "Old Testament" prophets, that later Jewish prophets such as Isaiah were forerunners of Jesus, just as the early prophets in Judaism were forerunners of the destruction of the First Temple and the exile of Israel and Judah. Yet Dylan's vision of a wandering Augustine as a beggar also reminds me of the Jewish tradition that Elijah never died, that he wanders the Earth and shows up at people's Passover seders to drink a cup of wine, which is always left out for him. (I believe that Bob Dylan's St. Augustine, who is "alive as you or me," precedes Joan Baez's Joe Hill "Alive as you or me" by at last a year or more, that Baez is quoting Dylan rather than the other way around.) 
::"Arise, arise," he cried so loud,
::In a voice without restraint,
::"Come out, ye gifted kings and queens
::And hear my sad complaint.
::No martyr is among ye now
::Whom you can call your own,
::So go on your way accordingly
::But know you're not alone."
Could Dylan be taking an Augustinian view of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, with the added detail that Augustine himself is now the servant who goes to the husbandman? (In the Christian text, the planter is clearly God the father, the servants are the Jewish prophets, and the husbandman who kills servant after servant is the Jews.) According to the current Wikipedia text, the term husbandman is translated as tenant or farmer in the New International Version and as vine-grower in the New American Standard Bible. Workers often tended absentee estates and if the owner had no heirs the workers would have the first right to the land.
::I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,
::Alive with fiery breath,
::And I dreamed I was amongst the ones
::That put him out to death.
::Oh, I awoke in anger,
::So alone and terrified,
::I put my fingers against the glass
::And bowed my head and cried.
Do Dylan's words, "I dreamed I was amongst the ones, that put him out to death" echo the Christian Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, which is a Christian retelling of Isaiah 5 in order to make it reflect a Christian world view. Does Dylan see himself as the husbandman. Mark 12 says, What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. 
So there are two very contradictory interpretations of Dylan's song. The "Christian interpretation" suggests that Dylan has turned Augustine into a composite of Isaiah and Elijah and Jesus, that this song is a forerunner to his eventual Christian gospel period. I don't think there's any historical or theological basis for an Augustian beggar that wanders the Earth, so this interpretation makes Augustine a composite and a representative of several Jewish and Christian iconographic figures. 
The "historical interpretation" really reads much less into the dream, and makes a lot of sense for the years 1967-1968. It recalls that the real Augustine died in the siege of Hippo, as Vandals were tearing down the city's walls. Is Dylan simply asking whether he is one of the Vandals of his own time, like students of 1967-1968 who stormed universities in France, the United States, and elsewhere, bringing down the Augustines of their time? Or perhaps Dylan is reflecting on those who follow him, or ask him to lead, and he is frightened of what they are asking him to do? --Metzenberg 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dreamed I saw St. Augustine 

message: This might seem a little trivial, but in the list of instruments that Dylans plays it lists "Keyboard", given that Dylan's most popular music was released in the 60's is it not more correct to change this to "Piano"?, or indeed to have both? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardy24 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piano or Keyboard? 

message: I would argue American rather than Jewish-American Jewish in first para. This article properly states that Dylan was born to Jewish parents who were part of a close-knit Jewish community in Duluth & Hibbing. His Jewish ancestors are listed as per Chronicles. But I think it’s clear that the artists who inspired Dylan – Woody Guthrie, Robert Johnson, Elvis Presley – are part of a very broad canvas of American musical culture, rather than a Jewish-American tradition. Would you also like to list Ramblin' Jack Elliott as a Jewish-American artist? Isaac Bashevis Singer, Saul Bellow and Philip Roth have explored Jewish-American themes in their work, yet in Wikipedia they are (properly, in my view) listed as American novelists, not Jewish-American.  Dylan uses Old Testament references. He uses New Testament references. He also references Egyptian & Greek mythology, Shakespeare & romantic poetry in his songs. Above all, he’s steeped in rock, blues, country music, & popular music of all shades. I think it’s false to characterise Dylan as a Jewish-American artist. That limits him. That’s my opinion.  Mick gold 21:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The artists who inspired him? Religion is not determined by the artists who inspire us. His "references" in his art couldn't be more irrelevant. Religion is not determined by the "references" one uses in one's art. Nor does it matter that "he’s steeped in rock, blues, country music, & popular music of all shades." That couldn't be more irrelevant. Religion is not determined by what genres of music one works in. Bus stop 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See Jewish-American, and Who is a Jew. Bus stop 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While he may be Jewish-American, he is not a Jewish-American musician. All of those things you dismiss as "irrelevent" are in fact, quite relevant. Also, his religion is, to some extent, disputed (at least in this article), whereas the fact that he is american is not. SECProto 22:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A musician is a person. He is a Jewish-American person, therefore he is a Jewish-American musician.  Bus stop 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no dispute about his religion. Curious people explore all sorts of things. He hasn't practiced Christianity since 1979. There is no evidence that he practices any religion. The salient point is that he was born Jewish. Bus stop 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he practises no religion now, shouldn't we put him down as "ex-Jewish, ex-Christian, agnostic American musician"? Of course not. The fact that he once practised Judaism is no more important than the fact that he once practised Christianity. Both should go in personal history, neither should go in the lead paragraph. Nick 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that he "once practiced Judaism." I said that he was born Jewish. Bus stop 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, He may be jewish he may not be, he may or may not once have been christian, the fact is he is a musician, from the USA, other things are debatable, and should not go in the lead paragraph. mick and nick have got it. same name huh? SECProto 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *There is no debate about his being Jewish. It is pointless to assert that he is not Jewish. He was born Jewish. He has not lived a life of a Christian. He has not "gotten into" Christianity. His curiosity which led him to probe into the identity of Christianity, briefly, in 1979, doesn't cause his "Jewishness" to evaporate forevermore. Bus stop 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are arguing that a couple years there didnt exist. fine. but is his "being jewish" really a key aspect to him? not at all. He has not publically stated his religion, and it is mentioned within the article that he is born to jewish parents. It's debatable whether he considers himself Jewish (don't use what he does as axamples of his jewishness - people can go to a church but not consider themselves christian). He is of jewish heritage (which is stated under his background) but he has never said he believes in judaism, and until you can find a source that does say, i don't think it belongs in the intro. SECProto 16:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So anyone who is born jewish is jewish forever, even if they express belief in other religions, other gods? SECProto 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, we are talking about the usage of the term. We are not discussing God. Again: the most common and basic usage of the term "Jewish" as concerns identity refers to status at birth. Again: Bob Dylan dabbled in many things. His brief flirtation with Christian identity does not erase the Jewish component of his identity. He is not basically a religious person, at least as concerns these organized religions that we are talking about. He has not become devout in adherence to any religion. He is a secular person who has tried many experiences in life. No doubt he was curious about experiencing the identity of a Christian. But he has not become involved with Christianity. The term Jewish still applies because that was his identity at birth. His mother and father were Jewish. His early learnings were in a Jewish home. That is what the term commonly refers to. In point of fact Bob Dylan is no less Jewish than any other Jewish person. By arguing for the removal of "Jewish-American" all you are doing is arguing for the removal of relevant information from the article. Countless Jewish-Americans live entirely secular, non-religious lives. In America Jews and Christians live side by side and mix freely. Many Jewish people accompany their Christian friends to Church and even may participate in Christian religious rituals. In most cases that does not change their status from Jewish to Christian. He is no less Jewish than any other Jewish person, especially any other Jewish, non-religious person. Bus stop 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your position now - I thought we were talking about jewish-americans as pertains to religious belief, not as an ethnic group. I agree, he does belong to the jewish ethnic group. However, the term "jewish-american" has religious connotations - as evidenced in the opening paragraph of the article Jewish-American, which you referenced earlier. It states "most surveys, the majority of which treat "Jewish" as a religious group". This suggests that Jewish-American is more recognized as being americans as members of the Jewish religion. As such, I feel that it would be unwise to include the term "jewish-american" in the intro to the article, however, I feel that it would fit quite well elsewhere in it, relating to his heritage, ethnicity or what have you. SECProto 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said in the last post, Jewish-American has much larger religious connotations than it does ethnicity connotations. and so, the opening paragraph should not state his jewish-american ethnicity in case it becomes confused with jewish-american religion. its really a very minor point. SECProto 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, it is a minor point. And as in so many other articles in which the subject of the article is Jewish-American, it is normal to point out that the subject of the article is Jewish-American. To leave it out is to suppress relevant information. Bus stop 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *This is not discussion of Dylan's religion; it could not be more briefly referenced. The purpose of the lead paragraph is to provide an abbreviated version of the article that follows. This is for the purpose of providing a reader who may not wish to read the whole article with a very brief summation. Bus stop 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * It is not standard practice or really appropriate to reference religion in bio leads. No one here has supported your position to date. You have been reverted by a host of editors and have now violated 3RR. --JJay 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish-American? 

message: I'd simply be interested in what musical influences have affected Dylan's music, past and present.
Gautam Discuss 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Influences?? 

message: Bus stop asserts there is no evidence that Dylan converted to Christianity. I think there is evidence that Dylan converted to Christianity. Dylan recorded three albums devoted to an exploration of the Christian faith: Slow Train Coming, Saved, most of Shot of Love (e.g. the song ‘Property of Jesus’). Between 1978 and 1980, Dylan gave 62 mini-sermons from the stage, while performing. These have been published as a book: “Saved! The Gospel Speeches of Bob Dylan” ed. Clinton Heylin, Hanuman Books, New York, 1990, . Typical extract: “I know a lot of you have never heard of Jesus before. I know I hadn’t until a couple of years ago. Jesus tapped me on the shoulder, said: Bob, why are resisting me? I said. I’m not resisting you! He said, You gonna follow me? I said, Well I never thought about this before! He said, When you’re not following me, you’re resisting me. John the Baptist baptised with water. Jesus baptises with fire, water and the Holy Spirit.” (Page 9, Dylan on stage Syracuse, May 1980.)  I think there have been songs exploring the Christian faith since then. What does Bus stop think the song ‘ Ring Them Bells’ on Oh Mercy is about? Whether Dylan still believes in Christ is, of course, a question only he knows the answer to, but I think there is no doubt he once proselytised on behalf of the Christian faith.  Mick gold 07:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not alone in describing Dylan as a born-again Christian between 1978 and 1980. Every major Dylan biography (Clinton Heylin, Howard Sounes, etc) describes in detail the Christian phase of Dylan’s career. By writing: “Dylan assumed the persona of a Christian in work done in the late 1970s and early 1980s.” you are engaging in original research, elevating your interpretation of Dylan above the best-known and standard biographies. I don’t accept that  when Dylan said: “Jesus tapped me on the shoulder, said: Bob, why are resisting me? I said. I’m not resisting you! He said, You gonna follow me? I said, Well I never thought about this before! He said, When you’re not following me, you’re resisting me. John the Baptist baptised with water. Jesus baptises with fire, water and the Holy Spirit.” – he was speaking through a persona, and neither do the major Dylan biographers. I have added relevant references to article.  Mick gold 14:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *It is an act. It is a stage persona. And that is not original research on my part. Original research is the assertion that a performer entertaining people from a stage is simultaneously converting to another religion. Look at Conversion to Christianity Conversion "is generally understood to be undertaken by a person who explicitly chooses to convert." And I am not even mentioning Baptism, understood by many to accompany most conversions. Sincerity is a key ingredient in conversion -- to any religion. Dylan was performing on stage. That is acting. Are actors always expressing their true feelings? Or, are they assuming the persona that the particular role calls for? Bus stop 14:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dylan told Australian journalist Karen Hughes in an interview in August 1980: "Christianity is making Christ the Lord of your life. You're talking about your life now, you're not just talking about part of it, you're not talking about a certain hour every day. You're talking about making Christ the Lord and master of your life, the King of your life. And you're also talking about Christ, the resurrected Christ. You're not talking about some dead man who had some good ideas and was nailed to a tree." (Heylin, p 525) Dylan was not on stage, he was talking to Hughes in what she described as "a very intense interview". Mick gold 14:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *The above is not conversion. Bus stop 15:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the word "conversion" is the problem here. If we don't have a reliable source saying that he underwent a formal conversion to a new faith, we might want to avoid that word and talk about it in more general terms.  We know about his lyrics and his promotion of Christian ideas for a time - we don't know if it was a formal conversion, but clearly was an embracing of Christianity. So why not try something like that? Tvoz |talk
Bus stop your argument was that Dylan's Christianity was 'an act', 'a persona'. You said: "Dylan was performing on stage. That is acting." Clearly in Armstrong's interview he was not on stage, he convinced her he was articulating his religious faith. Who are you to deny it? Are you in denial about something? Mick gold 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Dylan is a performer -- onstage or off. You need to find sources for actual conversion. Or leave that assertion out of the article. Since no one has shown a shred of evidence of actual conversion to Christianity, I don't see how this has stayed in the article as long as it has. I assumed there was some conversion process that had taken place. Until I started looking into it I assumed that Dylan had actually converted to Christianity. Now I see that that is not true at all. And furthermore -- please don't tell me I am in denial about anything. I am trying to write a truthful article. Bus stop 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have sources saying he was a born again christian - where are your sources saying he was just acting as a christian to create entertainment? i see some hypocrisy here. SECProto 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I am not saying that he was just acting as a Christian to create entertainment, or at least that is not primarily what I am saying. My primary point is that there was no act of conversion. There is only the assumption of the act of conversion. And I am saying that assumption is not good enough. The article has referred to his conversion. That is patently false, because there was no conversion. Does anyone have a source indicating that Dylan ever converted to Christianity? And please don't start with the name-calling. Bus stop 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Type in the key words dylan, conversion, and christianity into google. It comes up with 600,000 results, and although most probably arent relevent, the first ten are. A page on bobdylan.com also mentions bob dylan's conversion - see http://www.bobdylan.com/etc/ajacobs.html . If you are wondering whether he was ever baptised into christianity? because if he was, it would certainly have been a private affair. And as I said before, find me one source which says "dylan never converted to christianity" - i doubt you will find a single one. As I said, you are being hypocritical in that you are expecting us to provide proof, while providing none yourself that shows the contrary. SECProto 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of conversion? 

message: Yes, there should be a section like this, one that has well-referenced criticisms (of his politics, his lyrics, his singing style, his music, his whatever); however, it's weird to have just a long quote from Noam Chomsky calling Dylan a spokesman for "capitalism". Maybe that could be briefly referenced (and linked to) as a criticism of Dylan's conservative/"reactionary" politics, but it should not take up so much space, and there should be lots of other stuff under Criticism of Bob Dylan. Tix 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" section 

message: In response to Mick gold above: That's pure subjectivity. What does it mean that: "Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah." According to who? According to "Pastor Kenn Gulliksen and Pastor Larry Myers of the Association of Vineyard Churches?" We need a reliable source if we are going to say a Jew converted to Christianity. Proselytizing and winning converts is important to Christianity. Why are there no other, independent sources for this? And: "After yet more time and further serious deliberation, Bob was baptized." Where? When? Who witnessed this? Are there any corroborating sources? Has this been confirmed? You say that: "Shortly afterwards, Dylan told Robert Hilburn of the L.A. Times “I truly had a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It’s an overused term but it’s something people can relate to.” Here Dylan is referring to an "experience." An experience of what? An "experience" confirms conversion? He obviously had an "experience" sitting down with religious Christians and learning about Christianity. But that is not any indication of conversion to Christianity. That is just as likely the result of curiosity and exploration, not to mention professional research. Did he not shortly thereafter utilize what he learned in his song-writing and stage performing? Dylan has been known to assume a variety of personas throughout his career. In writing an article about Dylan, a Jew, one doesn't assert that he was a Christian in the years 1979 and 1980 unless that is clearly verifiable. We know he went through his "Christian stage." We don't know he converted to Christianity. You are going beyond what sources support to blithely refer to his "conversion." It is not a minor and unimportant thing for a Jew to convert to Christianity. Stage performances, song lyrics, and even sitting down for a talk with a priest, in and of themselves, do not constitute "conversion." Baptism is generally a public ritual. And a convert generally follows through with concrete acts and/or statements confirming this important change. This is simply the norm. Where is the life lived as a Christian that one would reasonably expect of a sincere convert to Christianity? Gospel songs? That is the evolution of a professional. Dylan is successful because of his authenticity. He immerses himself in a persona and derives material for his music from those experiences. I am not saying write that in the article, because that would be original research. But I am opposed to cavalierly tossing about terms that imply that a Jew converted to Christianity, without reliable sources. Bus stop 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that without a printed source to verify the specifics of Mick gold's addition, the comment "Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah" should be removed and substituted with something which makes statements which can be verified, barring addition of reliable sources which substantiate both those stated points. To some degree, I think the standards WP:LGBT use regarding allegations of homosexuality could be applied here. I don't think we should include any statements which say anything beyond what the subject himself has stated either publicly or is recorded as making in creditable print sources. Now, I do see Dylan's statements, as referenced above, indicating that he has at least accepted that Jesus (in some way) is a spiritual role model/religious inspiration/whatever for him. However, Christianity includes a lot of different beliefs, including several which do not see Jesus as being divine or even (so far as I know) necessarily the Messiah, so to use phrasing indicating things which might not be specifically supported by the sources should be avoided. Regarding the sources used, it is certainly possible that the ministers mentioned were aware of the conversion, but I would like to see reference to a specific printed source confirming their statement. Regarding Bus stop's points regarding the perceived absence of evidence of conversion, I find them completely unconvincing. Not every sincere convert is necessarily going to become a 24-7 evangelist. In fact, many won't, as they aren't really qualified to be effective at it. Again, the subject's own words, preferably quoted in full, are probably the best source to use here. Bus stop is him/herself also using conclusions which are not specifically supported by the evidence ("evolution of a professional", etc.) to justify his/her position. Granted, I don't want to see the article become unbalanced in representation of his religious/spiritual beliefs, but I can certainly see adding a few of the most defining and revealing quotes from the book referenced above, or other publicly available sources, as it is generally accepted that the subject himself is counted as among the most reliable sources. John Carter 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The key word in what you said, I believe, being "often", not "always". John Carter 23:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ouch. Sorry, didn't check my own reference there. Thanks for catching that. "Son of God", however, can be taken any number of ways. Some groups see him as being the Archangel Michael incarnate, a human being, etc. I do think some of the Gnostics questioned the "Messiah" aspect, as well. And, certainly, (NOT asserting this as fact), it could even have been that Dylan converted to Islam, or a new religious movement, taking his particular "model" the prophet Jesus, but coming short of worshiping him. And thanks for taking the effort to check, as you indicated. John Carter 00:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *In the absence of clarity on what Christianity requires for conversion, do we assume conversion? Or do we assume investigation, curiosity, exploration? Bus stop 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the quote above, about the "born-again" experience, I think we can assume some sort of conversion, particularly given the other material available. And, in this case, his apparent(?) failure to refer to any other figures, including other Jewish religious leaders, I think makes it safe to assume that he at least somewhat "converted" from his previous Judaism to something else. And, considering that the name he mentioned was that of Jesus, barring other data coming forward, I think it is reasonable to assume he converted to something which could be called Christian.  Certainly, that is what the statements he made led people to believe, and I think he knew that, so it reasonable to assume that he intended to give people that impression. John Carter 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't think we say he's converted. I don't think we refer to him as "born again." Not without nuanced language we don't, anyway. We refer to his exploration into Christianity, we say he explored Christianity, we say he used imagery clearly derived from and relating to Christianity, we say he performed onstage in the persona of a Christian, and we say that he went through the actual steps in educating himself in authentic Christian thought. We relate his meetings with priest(s), if that is sourced. We quote language that he used, if it is sourced. But I don't think we jump to conclusions about a Jew having converted to Christianity, if that is not well founded in reliable sources. Bus stop 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He "performed onstage in the persona of a Christian"?! You could say similar things about anyone doing anything! i.e., "The Pope taught in the persona of someone who believes in God" (clearly implying that he might not have actually believed in God). Dylan's religious speeches at concerts, his exclusive playing (for a certain time period at least) of gospel songs, and last not but least his personal confession that he was now a Christian to anyone willing to listen: these things are all very strong and reliable evidence for a real conversion, and lacking any opposing evidence (that he was just in it for the musical genre or something) we are forced to say that for at least a limited time period, he became a believing Christian. And the LGBT comparison thing seems fair; if he claimed to be a Christian, how can you say he wasn't? If there were prominent Christians who publicly doubted the authenticity of Dylan's conversion, then quote them here, but otherwise I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt (if there's really any doubt). Tix 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, we are making value judgments here. I think what our aim should be is to avoid point of view pushing. Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity. Judaism does not proselytize, but Christianity does. See Religious conversion, in which we read: "Christianity and Islam are major religions which emphasize the desirability of conversion," and: "According to most branches of Christianity, sharing the message or Good News of Jesus Christ and his gospel is a responsibility of all followers of Jesus." I don't think we should be pushing the untenable point of view that Christianity has won a victory over a Jew as concerns the world to come or any such nonsense (my opinion). We can quite responsibly report the facts of this passage in Dylan's career without comparing him to the Pope. Bus stop 04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see what the problem is here.  Wikipedia is nothing to do with things like "Christianity has won a victory over a Jew".  Wikipedia should focus on the documented facts which (as Mick Gold has shown) clearly show that Dylan converted to Christianity at this time.  There is nothing controversial here, it's been well documented, it's NPOV.  If there is an authoritative article or book which claims otherwise, these could be mentioned as "Some have claimed...REF".  Walkerma 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *All you are saying is that Dylan has converted to an entity that is based on a stage performance. Isn't Christianity something else? Isn't it a religion? Doesn't it have a definition? Is it defined in any way anyone chooses to define it? What sources do you have for any real conversion to Christianity? And what evidence do you have, after that supposed conversion, that a person who is a Christian, existed? It is all missing. Please find a source for conversion or leave it out of the article. Bus stop 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have his quotes as indicated above. John Carter 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Note: Or put it in the article using qualifying  language. That is, language that is nuanced so as to differentiate between the conversion that some like to assume, and conversion based on proper procedure according to the Church. Bus stop 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making the inherently faulty assumption that we necessarily know which particular denomination (if any) Dylan converted to, which would be required if we were to know the proper procedure used by that church. We do not. Also, there are a number of non-denominational Christian groups which do not espouse any particular "litmus test" procedure to define someone as a Christian. One of your statements above, "All you are saying is that Dylan has converted to an entity that is based on a stage performance" is one I frankly cannot understand, as I am not sure specifically what is being referred to as being "based on a stage performance", the entity or Dylan himself. We now have contemporaneous documents added to the text as references, almost certainly  published with Dylan's prior knowledge and consent, which refer to Dylan as having undergone some kind of Christian conversion. I belive that can be seen as being an at least passive admission on the part of Dylan that he viewed the language "Christian convert" or its variations as acceptable. At this point, as stated by Walkerma above, I think the burden of proof lies on those who wish to exclude the content to provide reliable sources which would argue to the contrary. John Carter 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many christians would say that you do not need to be a member of any church to be a christian - you simply need to make a commitment to God. I personally became a christian one year before I set foot in any church, but I have never had anyone question my conversion. Walkerma 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without reliable sources 

message: There has been discussion at both this page and Talk:List of converts to Christianity for some time now, as evidenced by the discussion above and there, whether or not the published sources which have been cited on both pages are sufficient to describe and/or categorize the subject, Bob Dylan, as a Christian convert. John Carter 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the comments by Bus stop above, I believe it may be appropriate to centralize the discussion on that page. Please go to Talk:List of converts to Christianity#Request for comment to comment there so all the discussion can be centralized. Thank you. John Carter 00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Given the endless nature of this argument, I decided to get a little proactive about the sources. I looked up a few of the Bob Dylan biographies, and sought them out at the local bookstore. This particular bookstore only had two typical biographies, so I decided to work from them. Here are two very clear secondary sources which mention Bob's baptism/conversion. I hope this resolves the issue of sources so that I can waste my time on a video game or with my oft-ignored art projects.
This is copied verbatim (excuse any typos) from the books, and as it's for encyclopedia use, I hope the publisher doesn't mind me printing this long excerpt here. 
This first section is from Howard Sounes' book, 'Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan', pages 324-326:
::There were signs during the latter stages of the 1978 tour that Bob had become caught up in this enthusiasm for Jesus Christ. Bob met his old college friend Dave Whitaker after a concert in Oakland, California, in mid-November, and spoke to Dave's eleven-year-old son, Ubi. "Would you send me a guitar?" asked the kid. The next day a truck pulled up with a gift from Dylan- a brand-new Fender Stratocaster decorated with quotations from the Book of Paul. A few days later Bob played a show in San Diego. He picked up a cross that a fan had thrown on stage and started wearing it. Shortly after this incident Bob felt what he later described as "this vision and feeling," which he believed to be the presence of Jesus Christ in the room. Billy Cross was sitting next to Bob on the bus when he looked over and noticed that Bob seemed to be writing a spiritual song- "Slow Train Coming"- the lyrics of which were only partly formed at this time but which described a resurgence of faith of God. The band played the song at a sound check in Nashville on December 2.
::The catalyst to Bob's extraordinary full-blown conversion to Christianity seems to have been his relationship with sometime girlfriend Mary Alice Artes, although his relationship with Carolyn Dennis also focused his mind on the subject. Artes was linked with the Vineyard Fellowship, a small but growing evangelical church in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. The Fellowship was founded in 1974 by Kenn GUlliksen, a singing pastor with a Lutheran background. "I did an album of my own and had a number-one song in the Christian world," he says. "It sounded like The Carpenters, it was so boring." Popular music was used to enliven services at the Fellowship, with people encouraged to get up and play songs. Several well-known musicians were associated with the Vineyard Fellowship, including a member of The Eagles. Church meetings were informal and Pastor Kenn often dressed in shorts. Because the Fellowship did not have a dedicated church building, they would lease buildings or meet on the beach. Ideologically, the Vineyard Fellowship was Bible-based, taking a fairly strong line on drugs, excessive drinking, and adultery.
::Pastor Kenn says Mary Alice Artes approached him one Sunday in January 1979 after a service in a rented church building in Reseda and said she wanted somebody to speak with her boyfriend at home. Two of Pastor Kenn's colleagues, Paul Edmond and Larry Myers, duly went with Artes to an apartment in the West Los Angeles suburb of Brentwood. It was here that they met Bob. According to Pastor Kenn, who received a report back, Bob told them his life was empty. The pastors replied that God was the "only ultimate success" and Bob indicated that he wanted what Pastor Kenn calls a "lifestyle relationship" with God. "He was apparently ready to ask for God's forgiveness for sin," says Pastor Kenn. Larry Myers spoke to Bob about Jesus Christ, and talked about the Bible, from Genesis through to the Revelation of St. John the Divine. "Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah," says Myers.
::Bob later said that Mary Alice Artes was instrumental in his conversion. But she resists suggestions that any one person was responsible. "I cannot lead anyone to the Lord... I could only say that God did what he had to do," she says. "I think that too many people wanna be glorifying themselves in a situation that really should not have any glory at all."
::Bob and Mary Alice enrolled in the Vineyard Fellowship's School of Discipleship, attending Bible class most weekday mornings for more than three months at the beginning of 1979. At first Bob thought there was no way that he could devote so much time to the project; he felt he had to get back on the road. Soon, though, he found himself awake at 7 A.M., compelled to get up and drive to the real estate office in Reseda where Bible classes were held. "I couldn't believe I was there," he said.
::Assistant Pastor Bill Dwyer, who taught a class on the Sermon on the Mount, recalls Bob as being withdrawn in Bible class and also when he made rare appearances at church. "He probably needs to be," says Pastor Bill. "The few times he would [come] into church people would glom onto him: Oh, it's Bob Dylan!" Indeed, Pastor Bill, who had all Bob's albums, had to restrain himself from doing the same.
::It was during this late winter/spring period of 1979 that Mary Alice Ares was baptized in a swimming pool at Pastor Bill's house.
::"This was total immersion. Because baptism is a symbol of burial, burying guilt, and then pulling the new man out of the water," says Pastor Kenn. Bob attended the baptism and, not long afterward, Bob was himself baptized, probably in the ocean, which was where the fellowship normally conducted baptisms. By being immersed in water, Bob became, in common parlance, a born-again Christian, though he would later shrink from the term, claiming he had never used it. Yet he was clearly quoted in a 1980 interview with trusted Los Angeles Times journalist Robert Hilburn saying: "I truly has a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It's an overused term, but it's something that people can relate to."
::An element of religiosity had always existed in Bob's work, and it was particularly strong on the album John Wesley Harding. Religion had in fact been with him since childhood when his father instilled a strict moral code in his eldest son and sent him to study with a rabbi for his bar mitzvah. As a songwriter, Bob had always felt himself to be a channel for inspiration. At the start of his career, he told Sing Out! that words just came to him: "The songs are there. They exist all by themselves just waiting for someone to write them down." In this sense, he had a powerful everyday connection with a mysterious source of information and, over the years, he came to think that the songs arose from God. It was a small step, apparently, from this to flinging himself headfirst into orthodox religion. Yet Bob of course was born and raised in the Jewish faith, and it is fundamentally wrong to most Jews to think of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. "For a person to be a 'completed Jew' is very offensive to them," admits Pastor Kenn. "They think that is an oxymoron, where as I see it, Christians see it, and Jewish Christians see it at the [truth]." Indeed, Bob's embracing of Christianity caused consternation, and some offense, among his Jewish friends and family. "I think it was for publicity, that's what I think. Because he is Jewish-minded, plenty Jewish-minded. He was brought up that way. He was bar mitzvahed," says Bob's aunt, Ethel Crystal.
::Bob's conversion to Christianity also caused considerable upset to his own children, who had been raised in the Jewish faith. Suddenly, packs of journalists were following their father to the Vineyard Fellowship in the hope of getting pictures of him going to a Christian church, and then staking out his home. The children saw this commotion when they visited their father. It was embarrassing and one of the few times when his celebrity was a problem in their lives.
The second except from Sounes' book is from page 356:
::In the fall of 1983, Bob's seventeen-year-old son Jesse had a belated bar mitzvah in Jerusalem- Jakob and Samuel had already been bar mitzvahed in California- and Bob was photographed wearing a yarmulke at the Wailing Wall, adding to speculation that he had returned to Judaism. "As far as we're concerned, he was a confused Jew," Rabbi Kasriel Kastel told Christianity Today. "We feel he's coming back." In fact, Jesse was on vacation in Israel with his grandmother, Beatty, when they discovered a bar mitzvah could be conducted quickly and easily at the Wailing Wall and Bob simply flew in to play his part. He still believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and kept a broadly Christian outlook, although he had not maintained regular contact with the Vineyard Fellowship since the early flush of his conversion.
The second book is called 'The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan' by Nigel Williamson (2nd edition).
This excerpt is broken into 3 sections, as one is from the main body of text, and the other two are from sidebars. All is taken from pages 112-113:
::'Jewish roots' sidebar
::Prior to his Christian conversion, Dylan had shown some interest in getting back in touch with his Jewish roots. After his father's funeral in June 1968, he confessed to Harold Leventhal, Woody Guthrie's former manager, that he had never really known the man who was Abe Zimmerman. Leventhal's response was to urge Dylan to get back in touch with his Jewish faith. Over the next few years he read widely around the subject and held talks with Rabbi Meir Kahane, a founder of the Jewish Defense League.
::He visited the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem on his birthday in May 1971. Time magazine reported that he was considering changing his name back to Zimmerman. Dylan dismissed such reports as "pure journalese". But he did consider the possibility of taking his family to live on a kibbutz. Bruce Dorfman, the painter who was his neighbor in Woodstock, reported that when he returned from Israel he was seriously considering become a Hasid. Instead, by the end of the decade he had become a born-again Christian.
::His conversion caused offence to members of his family and is Jewish friends. "I think it was for publicity, that's what I think," said his aunt Ethel Crystal. "He is Jewish-minded, plenty Jewish-minded, he was brought up that way. He was bar mitzvahed." And, despite his Christian conversion, his children all had bar mitzvahs and he attended the ceremonies on each occasion. When he encountered Leventhal at a party in Hollywood in 1980, his old friend confronted him and demanded, "What have you got that cross dangling around you for?"
::In 1982, there were strong rumours that he was again exploring his Jewish heritage, sparked by a picture of him wearing a yarmulke at the bar mitzvah of his son Jesse in Jerusalem. The following year there were further stories that he had been spending time with an ultra-orthodox sect called the Lubavitchers and even that he had recorded an album of Hasidic songs. Dylan kept silent, which only encouraged the rumours.
::By 1986, Allen Ginsberg was claiming that Dylan had reverted back to "his natural Judaism". Dylan appeared with his son-in-law Peter Himmelman (husband of his step-daughter Maria) at the annual Jewish Chabad telethon in Los Angeles in November 1989 wearing a yarmulke and singing "Hava Nagila". But ultimately, the importance of his Jewish roots appears to have been cultural rather than religious.
::'The Vineyard Fellowship' sidebar
::The Vineyard Fellowship, to which Dylan's girlfriend Mary Alice Artes introduced him in late 1978, was a small evangelical church that peddled a New Age, born-again version of Christianity. It had been found in Los Angeles in 1974 by Ken Gulliksen, who had previous been a singer on the Christian Music circuit. The church's style was informal. Gulliksen took services dressed in his shorts and counted a number of LA musicians among his congregation, including T-Bone Burnett, Steven Soles and David Mansfield, all of whom had played on Dylan's Rolling Thunder Tour.
::Body Text
::In January 1979, one of Dylan's girlfriends, Mary Alice Artes, approached Pastor Kenn Gulliksen of an evangelical church called the Vineyard Fellowship in the San Fernando Valley and told him that he wanted someone to speak to her boyfriend. Gulliksen sent two colleagues, Paul Esmond and Larry Myers, to meet Dylan in the West LA suburb of Brentwood. Within days he had signed up with the Fellowship. Sometime in the coming weeks, he was baptized and he and Artes commenced a three-month series of bible classes at the School of Discipleship.
Hopefully, these sources will come in handy for both the Bob Dylan and the List of converts to Christianity articles.
I'll have to a few other bookstores tomorrow and see if any other useful books can be found.
If this is useful to any of you, I have the ISBNs.
:'Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan' by Howard Sounes. 
:'The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan' by Nigel Williamson, 2nd Edition. 
Hopefully, I'll provide more excerpts tomorrow. --C.Logan 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources already provided are alreadyt sufficient.  The discussion on this talk page seems excessive, what many well-intentioned editors don't grasp or unwilling to accept is stated plainly at WP:RS: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  Wikipedia doesn't seek truth, only what verifiable sources stated are "truth."  If you found a couple verifiable sources declaring Dylan converted, then that alone really suffices unless there're other verifiable sources declaring Dylan didn't.  Have you considered just asking an admin to join in, as this seems to be a lengthy circle of debate with new sources cited ad nauseum yet magically still no consensus.  If you believe the sources fulfill WP:RS then that will end this back and forth. Tendancer 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published sources for Dylan's conversion, with more to come. 

message: Please don't be alarmed by all my edits; they're all minor and only intended to make the article more readable and logical. I'm trying not to change the content, I'm only cleaning it up some. Tix 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One comment. You added the word "secretly" regarding the marriage. I know nothing about the subject one way or another, but think that a bit of elaboration might be in order. Secret from whom, for instance? If just from the press, it might be called a "private" or "non-publicized" wedding. "Secret" is kind of a loaded word in this context. John Carter 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. "Private" would be better.Tix 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refining Prose 

message: This thread was not being used to discuss improvements to the Bob Dylan article in violation of Talk Page guidelines (see notice at top of page). It has been moved to the List of converts to christianity talk page. --JJay 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan shouldn't be on List of converts to Christianity 

message: When someone is says, "I believe Christ is my savior, etc." it often called profession of faith. This implies, "I feel this way with my whole heart and mind at this time, and I plan on being a faithful servant and sinning no more, etc." 
Using this language would acknowledge Dylan's sincerity in 1979 (complete, not experimental), but also not make claims on his current spirituality. Perhaps this would be a better compromise?  --Knulclunk 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any compromise would be nice. I'd love to make it clearer that he is apparently no longer Christian (I actually haven't seen any evidence which places him in the practice of any religion), but I still believe his conversion is extremely notable, and should be placed on the list. I consider the same for the other entrants who later left Christianity, such as Duleep Singh. Are there any others now listed? --C.Logan 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're editing an encyclopedia based upon the compilation of facts from verifiable, reliable sources.  So many of the comments here have a closer resemblance to a bulletin board discussing Dylan.  What User:C.Logan "believes" is a comment for a bulletin board.  C.Logan is entitled to believe anything -- but it's not our task to judge the evidence in 2007 from events that took place in 1979 and the early 1980's.  Secondary sources reported on his conversion and have already been quoted in the article.  If you now are reduced to parsing his profession of faith, it's time to move on. patsw 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point, but you should probably notice that there's a fellow here who considers 14 secondary sources (read: the kind of sources we're supposed to have) insufficient. I believe Knulclunk's suggestion is a direct result of this fellow's incredible standards. --C.Logan 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of secondary sources on any controversy (not just this one) are simply a circular chain of citations of each other. Whether in print or online, a footnote is used to create an illusion of legitimacy. --Metzenberg 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if those secondary sources qualify under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then I really question whether there is reason to try to require a primary source, particularly when, as in this case regarding the baptism, the presumptive primary source (a baptismal record) seems to have very likely never existed in the first place, because the body which many people presume would generate such records unusually made it a policy not to require such records in the first place. John Carter 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: These sources have been compiled not as an overwhelming lump of citations, but were added one-by-one as Bus stop systematically rejected internet sources, encyclopedia citations, newspaper excerpts, and finally, 3 biographies. At no point has Bus stop ever submitted a source which would cause us to take his word over the word of these secondary sources (which are the vastly preferred type of source). Additionally, as we were asked to compile sources with corroborating evidence, we did so- and yet we are still accused of providing insufficient, non-corroborating sources. --C.Logan 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have tried to explain this many times, when the sources I present are cast aside as 'secondary', as if it is some sort of mild slang term. --C.Logan 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan's Profession of Faith 

message: Does this section really belong? I understand it was merged from an article that was deleted at AfD, but that doesn't mean it belongs here. Dozens if not hundreds of artists have probably been likened to Dylan in their career or dubbed "The New Bob Dylan" and these statements don't see, notable or worthy of inclusion. GoodnightmushTalk 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, the end of the article just gets kind of messy; you got "Family," "Fan Base," "Chronicles," "THe New Bob DYlans", etc. and it's not very aesthetically pleasing, nor is it well organized. I think Chronicles and Fan Base at least could just be incorporated in the "Later Years" section somehow. Tix 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section in question could be added to some sort of "Influences" section, but it would requiring serious revision and substantiation that the individuals mentioned were in fact influenced directly by Dylan. Otherwise, it probably should be removed. John Carter 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Bob Dylans 

message: * "Embrace" is a ambiguous and distorting description of his conversion.  
* I researched a quotation from the New York Times at the time other editors were claiming on the talk page that Dylan had not converted, or that if he had, it was not well-publicized in reliable sources. The reason for the quotes appearance is not to demonstrate it was same old Dylan, but that for reporters covering Dylan, while in 1979 it was a rumor (the Rockwell quote), there was no longer in 1981 speculation over whether or not he converted (the Holden quote) -- which is why I have added By 1981, while Christian influences were apparent, his basic style had not changed patsw 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Embrace" and "same old Dylan" 

message: Wow! Just minutes after I posted the above, somebody sort's out the page! Thanks.
:For future reference, all you have to do is go to the history, pull up the previous version of the article (before the vandalism), click "Edit Page" and just click "Save PAge" and it will save that as the official Bob Dylan page (at least that's how I do it, maybe there's a better way!). Tix 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism again 

message: The wording “According to Pastor Kenn Gulliksen, Dylan participated in Bible study classes…” suggests Gulliksen is sole source for Dylan’s attendance. This is not so. Dylan has talked about attending Bible study classes in interviews:  “At first I said, ‘There’s no way I can devote three months to this, I’ve got to be back on the road soon.’ But I was sleeping one day and I just sat up in bed at seven in the morning and I was compelled to get dressed and drive over to the Bible school. I didn’t know myself if I could go for three months. But I did begin telling a few people after a couple of months and a lot of them got angry with me.” (Robert Hilburn, Los Angeles Times, Nov 1980) Re-printed on p. 495 of  Clinton Heylin, “Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited”, Harper Collins, 2003,      Mick gold 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan in Bible classes 

message: I don't have a problem with this except for its lack of source; could we get some (preferrably various sources, one for each Jewish cause he's supported) sources for this? And to whoever added this stuff here (I think it was Bus Stop), good work! I had never seen that interview where Dylan says he's not in an organized religion. I thought he had never really said anything that explicit. Strangely, in the interview it's not a direct quote from Dylan which is unfortunate, but I don't doubt its veracity. With this whole issue, I just want a little clarity as to what Dylan has actually said and done; it doesn't matter if he's Jewish, Christian, atheist, or agnostic, as long as we got reliable sources for it. I've heard of him getting involved with Jewish causes, like telethons and stuff, but we need a cited source here! Thanks. Tix 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are going to see "written sources" from the Lubavitch movement. Think of the Lubavitch movement actually as being somewhat equivalent to the Vineyard, except that it is directed only towards Jews. In other words, it makes so much sense that Dylan drifted from Vineyard to Lubavitch in a few years time. Lubavitch rabbis doesn't seek converts to Judaism, they only seek to help less religious Jews become more religious, and they do so very uncritically too. I have attended Lubavitch dinners myself. They send emissaries all over the world. When I was in Costa Rica during hanukkah, the local Lubavitch emmisary welcomed me at the public menorah lighting, and when I told him I was traveling, he gave me a cheap little menorah and enough candles to light for the rest of the festival. Lubavitch almost never publicizes who its supporters are. Unlike mainstream Jewish organizations, it never publishes lists of contributors. It does have its supporters appear at fundraisers, but only if they want to. You won't find much documentation of who its supporters are. Lubavitch contributors tend to be more liberal Jews, not Orthodox, who feel some kind spiritual connection with Orthodoxy and want to engage in Orthodox practices at times. --Metzenberg 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citation for "support for Jewish causes" 

message: I see that Zimmerman is used in a number of spots in the begining section and then changes to Dylan? Is this really appropriate? I didn't see this discussed before, but I am sure it has. I guess the think is use his birth name in describing history before he changed it? I would preffer to see Dylan used throughout the article. Thoughts? Thanks! --Tom 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is standard practice here when writing about people who changed their names to refer to them by the name they were using at that chronological point.    See Cat Stevens for example.  I made it a bit more consistent, and it should remain as Zimmerman until he started calling himself Dylan. Tvoz |talk 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tvoz, is there a Wiki manual of style page for that or any other "official" Wiki page you can direct me to? Thanks in advance, --Tom 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tvoz, never mind, found it at WP:MOSBIO. This is actually the style page I reffer people the most often over issues of ethnicity in the lead sentence of bios. Go figure :) --Tom 18:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimmerman vs Dylan 

message: Here is an excerpt from a book on the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. I offer it with the disclaimer that I am acquainted with the author. I don't really know her personally, but I have spoken with her several times at parties. I admire her writing very much. When we see each other, we usually talk about Jewish books. Sue Fishkoff is an author and a journalist who writes for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Jerusalem Post. Her book contains a chapter about Chabad's celebrity fundraising activities. The Rebbe, of course, refers to the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Lubavitcher rebbe, who passed away in 1994. Here is what the Sue Fishkoff book says about Bob Dylan (page 167, paperback edition):
::BEGIN QUOTATION
: Bob Dylan is one of the biggest names associated with Chabad, although his connection has waxed and waned over the years. Born Robert Zimmerman in the small Minnesota town of Hibbing, Dylan was allegedly bar-mitzvahed by a rabbi in a black hat and white beard who showed up in his town one winter night, taught him his Haftorah portion, and disappeared soon afterward. In the early 1980s, Chabad "rescued" Dylan from a brief flirtation with Christianity, and for several years he studied with Minneapolis shlichim (Hebrew, emissaries) Manis Friedman and Moshe Feller, whom he also visited for Shabbat dinners. Manis Friedman is still refered to as "Bob Dylan's rabbi," and a glowing blurb from Dylan appears on the front cover of Friedman's book on marital intimacy, Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore? Dylan made surprise appearances at the 1988 and 1989 telethons, once playing "Hava Nagilah" on the harmonica with his religious son-in-law, and he's been sighted almost every year at Chabad High Holiday services, most recently in Encino, California in 2001, where he was honored with an aliya (Hebrew, "going up") to the Torah on Yom Kippur morning. He came to the Rebbe for Sunday dollars more than half a dozen times, and word has it that he gave $100,000 for a Chabad building in Minnesota named after his father, but the notoriously reclusive star won't give interviews on this or any other subject touching on his current religious affiliation. 
::END QUOTATION
From Sue Fishkoff (2003), The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch. New York: Schocken Books. . Copyright 2003 by Sue Fishkoff. (Note that the author retains copyright. A limited quotation here, and in the article, would fall under fair use. Schocken Books is a legendary old Jewish publisher with European roots that was acquired by Random House in 1987. Random House has retained the Schocken name as an imprint.) --Metzenberg 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me to be very much the reputable source which has been missing. If it is to be added to the article, however, it should be used as a reference rather than a quotation. SECProto 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with SECProto. Dylan's 2 Chabad Telethon appearances were in 1986 and 1989. 5 Aug 1986 he recorded a version of Hank Williams' 'Thank God' with Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers; broadcast 14 Sep 1986. 24 Sep 1989 he contributed harmonica & recorder to 3 songs: 'Einsleipt Mein Kind dein Eigalach', 'Adelita' & 'Hava Negilah' to band comprising Peter Himmelman and Harry Dean Stanton. The band were introduced as Chopped Liver . I think it would be simplistic to characterise Dylan as switching from born again Christianity back to 'normative Judaism'. His work is much more complex than that. 'Ring Them Bells' (1989) sounds like a call for a re-awakening of moral values, using emphatically Christian imagery. There are other examples. Mick gold 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would describe Dylan as a spiritually motivated performer who doesn't want to limit his audience and the scope of his collaborations to just one religion. While he has clearly returned to the Jewish tradition, he is unafraid of using the gospel genre, style, and idiom, and continues to do so at times. See the Scott Marshall articles below. Dylan often pushes the limits when performing for a Jewish audience or a Chabad telethon, by performing materials from his gospel period (although not with lyrics that would offend his audience). --Metzenberg 07:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt from "The Rebbe's Army", by Sue Fishkoff 

message: Here are some links to a another series. This article ran as a four-part series in the Jewish Press. Tagline: In a four-part series, music journalist Scott Marshall looks at the strange spiritual journey of Bob Dylan. Lot's of material here, and a real award-winning series. Have a read! --Metzenberg 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan's Unshakable Monotheism, by Scott Marshall 

message: Here are excerpts from an article that appeared in the New York Daily News on June 8, 1986. The entire article is reprinted on Shmais, a website of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. 
1960s Superstar Dylan is Worshipping with Hasidic Jewish Group in Brooklyn
By Mike Santangelo/Daily News Staff Writer
: Bob Dylan, the reclusive pop superstar of the 1960s, has spent parts of the last four years living and worshipping with the ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn's Lubavitch community. Members of the community say that Dylan, 45, has been taking instruction from Talmudic scholars and listening to talks by Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson.
: His latest visit took place during Passover and he is expected to return when he comes to New York for a concert in Madison Square Garden July 17, community members said.
: Dylan declines to discuss his religious activities. "We do not talk about him here," said Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, spokesman for the Lubavitch community who has become a confidant of the singer. "He is a very private person and we respect his wishes to remain so. You never know when he will drop in -- he can come or go at any time."
For the rest of this article, see Shmais reprint of Daily News article Later, the article says ...
: Dylan has made a long spiritual journey that began with the protest and drug culture and included a flirtation with fundamentalist Christianity in the late 1970s. Now he attends farbrengens, gatherings where Schneerson speaks to followers for hours. (Farbrengen is Yiddish for a chasidic gathering for homiletic discourse.) --Metzenberg 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Daily News article on June 8, 1986